Produced by Curtis Weyant, Josephine Paolucci and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.
(This file was produced from scans of public domain works
at the University of Michigan's Making of America
collection.)







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 II.

NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
448 AND 445 BROADWAY.
LONDON: 16 LITTLE BRITAIN.
1861.

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.




FOURTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 5, 1796.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, December 5, 1796.

PRESENT:

JOHN ADAMS, Vice President of the United States, and President of the
Senate.

JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire.

BENJAMIN GOODHUE, from Massachusetts.

WILLIAM BRADFORD, from Rhode Island.

JAMES HILLHOUSE and URIAH TRACY, from Connecticut.

ELIJAH PAINE, and ISAAC TICHENOR, from Vermont.

JOHN RUTHERFORD and RICHARD STOCKTON, from New Jersey.

WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania.

HENRY LATIMER, from Delaware.

HUMPHREY MARSHALL, from Kentucky.

WILLIAM COCKE, from Tennessee.

JACOB READ, from South Carolina.

JAMES GUNN, from Georgia.

The number of Senators present not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, they adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.


TUESDAY, December 6.

ALEXANDER MARTIN, from the State of North Carolina, and WILLIAM BLOUNT,
from the State of Tennessee, severally attended.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter from PIERCE BUTLER, notifying
the resignation of his seat in the Senate, which was read.

The credentials of the after-named Senators were severally read:--Of
BENJAMIN GOODHUE, appointed a Senator by the State of Massachusetts, in
place of GEORGE CABOT, resigned; of ISAAC TICHENOR, appointed a Senator
by the State of Vermont, in place of MOSES ROBINSON, resigned; of JAMES
HILLHOUSE, appointed a Senator by the State of Connecticut in place of
OLIVER ELLSWORTH, whose seat is become vacant; of URIAH TRACY, appointed
a Senator by the State of Connecticut, in place of JONATHAN TRUMBULL,
resigned; of JOHN LAURANCE, appointed a Senator by the State of New
York, in place of RUFUS KING, whose seat is become vacant; of RICHARD
STOCKTON, appointed a Senator by the State of New Jersey, in place of
FREDERICK FRELINGHUYSEN, resigned; also, of WILLIAM BLOUNT and WILLIAM
COCKE, appointed Senators by the State of Tennessee;--and, the oath
required by law being respectively administered to them, they took their
seats in the Senate.

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.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, and acquaint him that a quorum of the Senate is assembled.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that
a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
they have appointed a joint committee, on their part, together with such
committee as the Senate may 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 that he may be
pleased to make to them.

_Resolved_, That the Senate concur in the above resolution, and that
Messrs. READ and LIVERMORE be the joint committee on the part of the
Senate.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives
therewith.

Mr. READ reported, from the joint committee appointed for that purpose,
that they had waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and had
notified him that a quorum of the two Houses of Congress are assembled,
and that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES acquainted the committee
that he would meet the two Houses in the Representatives' Chamber, at
twelve o'clock to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, December 7.

JOHN HENRY, from the State of Maryland, attended.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
they 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 returned to their own Chamber, and a copy of the Speech of
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, this day addressed to both Houses of
Congress, was read. [For which, see the proceedings in the House of
Representatives of December 7, _post._]

_Ordered_, That Messrs. READ, TRACY, and BINGHAM, 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.

It was further ordered that the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, this day communicated to both Houses, be printed for the use of
the Senate.

_Resolved_, That each Senator be supplied, during the present session,
with copies of three such newspapers printed in any of the States as he
may choose, provided that the same are furnished at the rate of the
usual annual charge for such papers.


THURSDAY, December 8.

JOHN LAURANCE, from the State of New York, attended, and, the oath
required by law being administered to him, he took his seat in the
Senate.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. STOCKTON, READ, and BINGHAM, be a committee to
inquire whether any, and what, regulations are proper to be made, on the
subject of the resignation of a Senator of the United States.


FRIDAY, December 9.

TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from the State of North Carolina, attended.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
they have resolved that two Chaplains 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.

Whereupon, the Senate

_Resolved_, That they do concur therein, and that the Right Reverend
Bishop WHITE be Chaplain on the part of the Senate.

Mr. READ, from the committee appointed for the 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.

On motion that it be printed for the use of the Senate, it passed in the
negative.

On motion, it was agreed to consider the report in paragraphs; and,
after debate, a motion was made for recommitment, which passed in the
negative; and, having agreed to amend the report, the further
consideration thereof was postponed.


SATURDAY, December 10.

_Address to the President._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee in
answer to the Address of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both
Houses of Congress; and, after further amendments, it was unanimously
adopted, as follows:

      We thank you, sir, for your faithful and detailed exposure
      of the existing situation of our country; and we sincerely
      join in sentiments of gratitude to an overruling Providence
      for the distinguished share of public prosperity and
      private happiness which the people of the United States so
      peculiarly enjoy.

      We are fully sensible of the advantages that have resulted
      from the adoption of measures (which you have successfully
      carried into effect) to preserve peace, cultivate
      friendship, and promote civilization, amongst the Indian
      tribes on the Western frontiers; feelings of humanity, and
      the most solid political interests, equally encourage the
      continuance of this system.

      We observe, with pleasure, that the delivery of the
      military posts, lately occupied by the British forces,
      within the territory of the United States, was made with
      cordiality and promptitude, as soon as circumstances would
      admit; and that the other provisions of our treaties with
      Great Britain and Spain, that were objects of eventual
      arrangement, are about being carried into effect, with
      entire harmony and good faith.

      The unfortunate but unavoidable difficulties that opposed a
      timely compliance with the terms of the Algerine Treaty,
      are much to be lamented; as they may occasion a temporary
      suspension of the advantages to be derived from a solid
      peace with that power, and a perfect security from its
      predatory warfare; at the same time, the lively impressions
      that affected the public mind on the redemption of our
      captive fellow-citizens, afford the most laudable incentive
      to our exertions to remove the remaining obstacles.

      We perfectly coincide with you in opinion, that the
      importance of our commerce demands a naval force for its
      protection against foreign insult and depredation, and our
      solicitude to attain that object will be always
      proportionate to its magnitude.

      The necessity of accelerating the establishment of certain
      useful manufactures, by the intervention of the Legislative
      aid and protection, and the encouragement due to
      agriculture by the creation of Boards, (composed of
      intelligent individuals,) to patronize this primary pursuit
      of society, are subjects which will readily engage our most
      serious attention.

      A National University may be converted to the most useful
      purposes; the science of legislation being so essentially
      dependent on the endowments of the mind, the public
      interests must receive effectual aid from the general
      diffusion of knowledge; and the United States will assume a
      more dignified station among the nations of the earth, by
      the successful cultivation of the higher branches of
      literature.

      A Military Academy may be likewise rendered equally
      important. To aid and direct the physical force of the
      nation, by cherishing a military spirit, enforcing a proper
      sense of discipline, and inculcating a scientific system
      of tactics, is consonant to the soundest maxims of public
      policy. Connected with, and supported by such an
      establishment, a well regulated militia, constituting the
      natural defence of the country, would prove the most
      effectual, as well as economical, preservative of peace.

      We cannot but consider, with serious apprehensions, the
      inadequate compensations of the public officers, especially
      of those in the more important stations. It is not only a
      violation of the spirit of a public contract, but is an
      evil so extensive in its operation, and so destructive in
      its consequences, that we trust it will receive the most
      pointed Legislative attention.

      We sincerely lament that, whilst the conduct of the United
      Sates has been uniformly impressed with the character of
      equity, moderation, and love of peace, in the maintenance
      of all their foreign relationships, our trade should be so
      harassed by the cruisers and agents of the Republic of
      France, throughout the extensive departments of the West
      Indies.

      Whilst we are confident that no cause of complaint exists
      that could authorize an interruption of our tranquillity or
      disengage that Republic from the bonds of amity, cemented
      by the faith of treaties, we cannot but express our deepest
      regrets that official communications have been made to you,
      indicating a more serious disturbance of our commerce.
      Although we cherish the expectation that a sense of
      justice, and a consideration of our mutual interests, will
      moderate their councils, we are not unmindful of the
      situation in which events may place us, nor unprepared to
      adopt that system of conduct, which, compatible with the
      dignity of a respectable nation, necessity may compel us to
      pursue.

      We cordially acquiesce in the reflection, that the United
      States, under the operation of the Federal Government, have
      experienced a most rapid aggrandizement and prosperity, as
      well political as commercial.

      Whilst contemplating the causes that produce this
      auspicious result, we must acknowledge the excellence of
      the constitutional system, and the wisdom of the
      Legislative provisions; but we should be deficient in
      gratitude and justice did we not attribute a great portion
      of these advantages to the virtue, firmness, and talents of
      your Administration--which have been conspicuously
      displayed in the most trying times, and on the most
      critical occasions. It is, therefore, with the sincerest
      regret that we now receive an official notification of your
      intentions to retire from the public employment of your
      country.

      When we review the various scenes of your public life, so
      long and so successfully devoted to the most arduous
      services, civil and military, as well during the struggles
      of the American Revolution, as the convulsive periods of a
      recent date; we cannot look forward to your retirement
      without our warmest affections and most anxious regards
      accompanying you, and without mingling with our
      fellow-citizens at large in the sincerest wishes for your
      personal happiness that sensibility and attachment can
      express.

      The most effectual consolation that can offer for the loss
      we are about to sustain, arises from the animating
      reflection, that the influence of your example will extend
      to your successors, and the United States thus continue to
      enjoy an able, upright, and energetic Administration.

                          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. READ 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 on Monday next, at twelve o'clock, at his own house.
Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That the Senate will, on Monday next, at twelve o'clock,
wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES accordingly.


MONDAY, December 12.

THEODORE FOSTER, from the State of Rhode Island; JOHN BROWN, from the
State of Kentucky; and HENRY TAZEWELL, from the State of Virginia,
severally attended.

_Address to the President._

Agreeably to the resolution of the 10th instant, 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 made the following reply:

      GENTLEMEN: It affords me great satisfaction to find in your
      Address a concurrence in sentiment with me on the various
      topics which I presented for your information and
      deliberation; and that the latter will receive from you an
      attention proportioned to their respective importance.

      For the notice you take of my public services, civil and
      military, and your kind wishes for my personal happiness, I
      beg you to accept my cordial thanks. Those services, and
      greater, had I possessed ability to render them, were due
      to the unanimous calls of my country, and its approbation
      is my abundant reward.

      When contemplating the period of my retirement, I saw
      virtuous and enlightened men, among whom I relied on the
      discernment and patriotism of my fellow-citizens to make
      the proper choice of a successor; men who would require no
      influential example to ensure to the United States "an
      able, upright, and energetic Administration." To such men I
      shall cheerfully yield the palm of genius and talents to
      serve our common country; but, at the same time, I hope I
      may be indulged in expressing the consoling reflection,
      (which consciousness suggests,) and to bear it with me to
      my grave, that none can serve it with purer intentions than
      I have done, or with a more disinterested zeal.

                          G. WASHINGTON.

The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and then adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, December 21.

THEODORE SEDGWICK, appointed a Senator by the State of Massachusetts, in
place of CALEB STRONG, resigned, attended, produced his credentials, and
the oath required by law being administered to him, he took his seat in
the Senate.


TUESDAY, December 27.

JOHN EAGER HOWARD, appointed a Senator by the State of Maryland, in
place of RICHARD POTTS, resigned, produced his credentials, and the oath
required by law being administered, he took his seat in the Senate.

JOSIAH TATTNALL, from the State of Georgia, attended.


WEDNESDAY, December 28.

JAMES ROSS, from the State of Pennsylvania, attended.


WEDNESDAY, January 11, 1797.

JOHN VINING, from the State of Delaware, attended.


THURSDAY, January 12.

AARON BURR, from the State of New York, and STEVENS THOMSON MASON, from
the State of Virginia, attended.


FRIDAY, January 27.

JOHN HUNTER, appointed a Senator by the State of South Carolina, in
place of PIERCE BUTLER, resigned, attended, produced his credentials,
and the oath required by law, being administered to him, he took his
seat in the Senate.


THURSDAY, February 2.

MR. SEDGWICK reported, from the joint committee appointed on the part of
the Senate, on the subject of the election of PRESIDENT and VICE
PRESIDENT, that, in their opinion, the following resolution ought to be
adopted, viz:

      "That the two Houses shall assemble in the Chamber of the
      House of Representatives 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 votes, be entered on the journals
      of the two Houses."


WEDNESDAY, February 8.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
they are ready to meet the Senate in the Chamber of that House,
agreeably to the report of the joint committee, to attend the opening
and examining the votes of the Electors for PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, as the constitution provides.

The two Houses of Congress accordingly assembled in the Representatives'
Chamber, and the certificates of the Electors of sixteen States were, by
the VICE PRESIDENT, opened and delivered to the tellers, appointed for
the purpose, who, having examined and ascertained the number of votes,
presented a list thereof to the VICE PRESIDENT, which was read as
follows:

      For John Adams, 71 votes; for Thomas Jefferson, 68; for
      Thomas Pinckney, 59; for Aaron Burr, 30; for Samuel Adams,
      15; for Oliver Ellsworth, 11; for George Clinton, 7; for
      John Jay, 5; for James Iredell 2; for George Washington, 2;
      for John Henry, 2; for Samuel Johnson, 2; for Charles
      Cotesworth Pinckney, 1;

Whereupon the VICE PRESIDENT addressed the two Houses of Congress as
follows:

      In obedience to the Constitution and law of the United
      States, and to the commands of both Houses of Congress,
      expressed in their resolution passed in the present
      session, I now declare that

      JOHN ADAMS is elected President of the United States, for
      four years, to commence with the fourth day of March next;
      and that

      THOMAS JEFFERSON is elected Vice President of the United
      States, for four years, to commence with the fourth day of
      March next. And may the Sovereign of the Universe, the
      ordainer of civil government on earth, for the preservation
      of liberty, justice, and peace among men, enable both to
      discharge the duties of these offices conformably to the
      Constitution of the United States, with conscientious
      diligence, punctuality, and perseverance.

The VICE PRESIDENT then delivered the votes of the Electors to the
Secretary of the Senate, the two Houses of Congress separated, and the
Senate returned to their own Chamber, and soon after adjourned.


THURSDAY, February 9.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following communication:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      In consequence of the declaration made yesterday in the
      Chamber of the House of Representatives of the election of
      a President and Vice President of the United States, the
      record of which has just now been read from your journal by
      your Secretary, I have judged it proper to give notice
      that, on the 4th of March next at 12 o'clock I propose, to
      attend again in the Chamber of the House of
      Representatives, in order to take the oath prescribed by
      the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the
      President, to be administered by the Chief Justice or such
      other Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States as
      can most conveniently attend; and, in case none of those
      Judges can attend, by the Judge of the District of
      Pennsylvania, before such Senators and Representatives of
      the United States as may find it convenient to honor the
      transaction with their presence.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary carry an attested copy of this
communication to the House of Representatives.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. SEDGWICK, TAZEWELL, and READ, be a joint
committee, with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the
House of Representatives, to consider whether any, and if any, what
measures ought to be adopted for the further accommodation of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, for the term commencing on the 4th day
of March next.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary desire the concurrence of the House of
Representatives in the appointment of a joint committee on their part.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
they have agreed to the report of the joint committee appointed to
ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for PRESIDENT and
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and of notifying the persons
elected of their election.

Mr. SEDGWICK, from the joint committee to whom it was referred to join
such committee as might be appointed by the House of Representatives to
ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for PRESIDENT and
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and of notifying the persons
elected of their election, reported that, having further concurred with
the committee appointed by the House of Representatives, that, in their
opinion, the following resolution ought to be adopted by the Senate:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Senate be directed
      to give, by letter, to the Vice President elect, a
      notification of his election."

On motion, it was agreed to insert the PRESIDENT of the Senate instead
of the Secretary; and,

On motion, it was agreed to reconsider the resolution, and to recommit
the report from the joint committee.

Mr. SEDGWICK reported, from the joint committee last mentioned, that the
committee on the part of the House of Representatives considered
themselves discharged from their commission.

_Resolved_, That the Senate disagree to the report of the joint
committee on the mode of notifying the VICE PRESIDENT elect of his
election; and that a committee be appointed on the part of the Senate,
to confer with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the
House of Representatives, on the report of the joint committee above
mentioned; and that Messrs. SEDGWICK, LAURANCE and READ, be the managers
at the conference on the part of the Senate.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives
therewith.

On motion, that it be

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Senate be directed,
      and he is hereby directed, to lay before the President of
      the United States a copy of the journal of yesterday,
      relative to the opening and counting of votes for President
      and Vice President of the United States, and the
      declaration of the President of the Senate thereon; and,
      also, to present to the President of the United States a
      copy of the notification given by the President elect of
      the time, place, and manner, of qualifying to execute the
      duties of his office."

_Ordered_, That the motion lie until to-morrow for consideration.


FRIDAY, February 10.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday, that
the Secretary of the Senate wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
and notify him of the election of PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, to commence with the 4th day of March next.

On motion, to insert "a committee" in place of "the Secretary," it
passed in the negative. And the motion being amended, was adopted as
follows:

_Ordered_, That the Secretary of the Senate lay before the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES a copy of the journal of the 8th instant, relative to
the opening and counting the votes for PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, and the declaration of the PRESIDENT of the Senate
consequent thereon; and, also a copy of the notification given by the
PRESIDENT elect of the time, place, and manner of qualifying to execute
the duties of his office.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
they agree to the report of the joint committee appointed by the two
Houses to confer on a proper mode of notifying the VICE PRESIDENT elect
of his election.

Mr. SEDGWICK, from the committee of conference above mentioned, reported
that the following resolution should be adopted by the House of
Representatives:

      "_Resolved_, That the notification of the election of the
      Vice President elect be made by such person and in such
      manner as the Senate may direct."

On motion, that it be

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to communicate (in such manner as he shall judge
      most proper) to the person elected Vice President of the
      United States, for the term of four years, to commence 4th
      day of March next, information of his said election:"

It passed in the negative.

_Ordered_, That the resolution this day agreed to by the House of
Representatives, relative to the notification of the election of the
VICE PRESIDENT elect, be referred to Messrs. MASON, HILLHOUSE, and
SEDGWICK, to consider and report thereon to the Senate.

Mr. MASON reported, from the committee last appointed; and, the report
being read, was amended and adopted as follows:

_Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be requested to
cause to be transmitted to THOMAS JEFFERSON, Esq., of Virginia, VICE
PRESIDENT elect of the United States, notification of his election to
that office; and that the PRESIDENT of the Senate do make out and sign a
certificate in the words following:

      Be it known, that the Senate and House of Representatives
      of the United States of America, being convened in the city
      of Philadelphia, on the second Wednesday in February, in
      the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
      ninety-seven, the underwritten Vice President of the United
      States and President of the Senate did, in the presence of
      the said Senate and House of Representatives, open all the
      certificates and count all the votes of the Electors for a
      President and for a Vice President; by which it appears
      that THOMAS JEFFERSON, Esquire, was duly elected, agreeably
      to the constitution, Vice President of the United States of
      America.

      "In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal,
      this 10th day of February, 1797."

_Ordered_, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.


MONDAY, February 13.

On request, the VICE PRESIDENT was excused from further attendance in
the Senate after Wednesday next.


WEDNESDAY, February 15.

      _Withdrawal of the Vice-President, (now President elect of
      the United States,) and his Valedictory to the Senate._

After the consideration of the Executive business, a motion was made
that the Senate now adjourn; when the VICE-PRESIDENT addressed them as
follows:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      If, in the general apprehension of an intention to retire
      in that most eminent citizen, to whom all eyes had been
      directed, and all hearts attracted, as the centre of our
      Union, for so long a period, the public opinion had
      exhibited any clear indication of another, in whom our
      fellow-citizens could have generally united, as soon as I
      read that excellent Address, which announced the necessity
      of deliberation in the choice of a President, I should have
      imitated the example of a character with which I have
      co-operated, though in less conspicuous and important
      stations, and maintained an uninterrupted friendship for
      two and twenty years. But, as a number of characters
      appeared to stand in the general estimation so nearly on a
      level, as to render it difficult to conjecture on which the
      majority would fall; considering the relation in which I
      stood to the people of America, I thought it most
      respectful to them, and most conducive to the tranquillity
      of the public mind, to resign myself, with others, a silent
      spectator of the general deliberation, and a passive
      subject of public discussions.

      Deeply penetrated with gratitude to my countrymen in
      general, for their long continued kindness to me, and for
      that steady and affecting confidence, with which those who
      have most intimately known me, from early life, have, on so
      many great occasions, intrusted to me the care of their
      dearest interests; since a majority of their Electors,
      though a very small one, have declared in my favor, and
      since, in a Republican Government, the majority, though
      ever so small, must of necessity decide, I have determined,
      at every hazard of a high but just responsibility, though
      with much anxiety and diffidence, once more to engage in
      their service. Their confidence, which has been the chief
      consolation of my life, is too precious and sacred a
      deposit ever to be considered lightly; as it has been
      founded only on the qualities of the heart, it never has
      been, it never can be, deceived, betrayed, or forfeited by
      me.

      It is with reluctance, and with all those emotions of
      gratitude and affection, which a long experience of your
      goodness ought to inspire, that I now retire from my seat
      in this House, and take my leave of the members of the
      Senate.

      I ought not to declare, for the last time, your
      adjournment, before I have presented to every Senator
      present, and to every citizen who has ever been a Senator
      of the United States, my thanks, for the candor and favor
      invariably received from them all. It is a recollection of
      which nothing can ever deprive me, and it will be a source
      of comfort to me, through the remainder of my life, that
      as, on the one hand, in a government constituted like ours,
      I have for eight years held the second situation under the
      Constitution of the United States, in perfect and
      uninterrupted harmony with the first, without envy in one,
      or jealousy in the other; so, on the other hand, I have
      never had the smallest misunderstanding with any member of
      the Senate. In all the abstruse questions, difficult
      conjectures, dangerous emergencies, and animated debates,
      upon the great interests of our country, which have so
      often and so deeply impressed all our minds, and interested
      the strongest feelings of the heart, I have experienced a
      uniform politeness and respect from every quarter of the
      House. When questions of no less importance than difficulty
      have produced a difference of sentiment, (and difference of
      opinion will always be found in free assemblies of men, and
      probably the greatest diversities upon the greatest
      questions,) when the Senators have been equally divided,
      and my opinion has been demanded according to the
      constitution, I have constantly found, in that moiety of
      the Senators from whose judgment I have been obliged to
      dissent, a disposition to allow me the same freedom of
      deliberation, and independence of judgment, which they
      asserted for themselves.

      Within these walls, for a course of years, I have been an
      admiring witness of a succession of information, eloquence,
      patriotism, and independence, which, as they would have
      done honor to any Senate in any age, afford a consolatory
      hope, (if the Legislatures of the States are equally
      careful in their future selections, which there is no
      reason to distrust,) that no council more permanent than
      this, as a branch of the Legislature, will be necessary, to
      defend the rights, liberties, and properties of the people,
      and to protect the Constitution of the United States, as
      well as the constitutions and rights of the individual
      States, against errors of judgment, irregularities of the
      passions, or other encroachments of human infirmity, or
      more reprehensible enterprise, in the Executive on one
      hand, or the more immediate representatives of the people
      on the other.

      These considerations will all conspire to animate me in my
      future course, with a confident reliance, that as far as my
      conduct shall be uniformly measured by the Constitution of
      the United States, and faithfully directed to the public
      good, I shall be supported by the Senate, as well as by the
      House of Representatives, and the people at large; and on
      no other conditions ought any support at all to be expected
      or desired.

      With cordial wishes for your honor, health, and happiness,
      and fervent prayers for a continuation of the virtues,
      liberties, prosperity, and peace, of our beloved country, I
      avail myself of your leave of absence for the remainder of
      the session.


THURSDAY, February 16.

The VICE-PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the choice of a
PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and the
honorable WILLIAM BINGHAM was duly elected.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, and notify him of the election of the Honorable WILLIAM BINGHAM,
to be PRESIDENT of the Senate _pro tempore_.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives of
this election.

On motion,

_Ordered_, That Messrs. SEDGWICK, BURR, and TRACY, be a committee to
prepare and report the draft of an answer to the Address delivered
yesterday to the Senate, by the VICE PRESIDENT of the United States.


TUESDAY, February 21.

The bill to accommodate the PRESIDENT was read the third time; and,
being further amended,

On motion that it be _Resolved_, That this bill pass, it was decided in
the affirmative--yeas 28, nays 3, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bloodworth, Blount, Bradford,
      Brown, Foster, Goodhue, Gunn, Henry, Hillhouse, Howard,
      Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Marshall, Martin,
      Pain, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall,
      Tazewell, Tichenor, Tracy, and Vining.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Cocke, Hunter, and Mason.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass; that it be engrossed; and
that the title thereof be, "An act to accommodate the PRESIDENT."

Mr. SEDGWICK reported from the committee appointed for the purpose, the
draft of an answer to the Address of the VICE PRESIDENT of the United
States, on his retiring from the Senate; which was read.

On motion, that it be printed for the use of the Senate, it was
disagreed to.

_Ordered_, That the report lie for consideration.


WEDNESDAY, February 22.

The Senate took into consideration the report of the committee, in
answer to the Address of the VICE PRESIDENT of the United States, on his
retiring from the Senate.

On motion to recommit the report, it passed in the negative: and the
report being amended, was adopted, as follows:

      SIR: The Senate of the United States would be unjust to
      their own feelings, and deficient in the performance of a
      duty their relation to the Government of their country
      imposes, should they fail to express their regard for your
      person, and their respect for your character, in answer to
      the Address you presented to them, on your leaving a
      station which you have so long and so honorably filled as
      their President.

      The motives you have been pleased to disclose which induced
      you not to withdraw from the public service, at a time when
      your experience, talents, and virtues, were peculiarly
      desirable, are as honorable for yourself, as, from our
      confidence in you, sir, we trust the result will be
      beneficial to our beloved country.

      When you retired from your dignified seat in this House,
      and took your leave of the members of the Senate, we felt
      all those emotions of gratitude and affection, which our
      knowledge and experience of your abilities and undeviating
      impartiality ought to inspire; and we should, with painful
      reluctance, endure the separation, but for the consoling
      reflection, that the same qualities which have rendered you
      useful, as the President of this branch of the Legislature,
      will enable you to be still more so, in the exalted station
      to which you have been called.

      From you, sir, in whom your country have for a long period
      placed a steady confidence, which has never been betrayed
      or forfeited, and to whom they have on so many occasions
      intrusted the care of their dearest interests, which have
      never been abused; from you, who, holding the second
      situation under the Constitution of the United States, have
      lived in uninterrupted harmony with him who has held the
      first; from you we receive, with much satisfaction, the
      declaration which you are pleased to make of the opinion
      you entertain of the character of the present Senators, and
      of that of those citizens who have been heretofore
      Senators. This declaration, were other motives wanting,
      would afford them an incentive to a virtuous perseverance
      in the line of conduct which has been honored with your
      approbation.

      In your future course, we entertain no doubt that your
      official conduct will be measured by the constitution, and
      directed to the public good; you have, therefore, a right
      to entertain a confident reliance, that you will be
      supported, as well by the people at large as by their
      constituted authorities.

      We cordially reciprocate the wishes which you express for
      our honor, health, and happiness; we join with yours our
      fervent prayers for the continuation of the virtues and
      liberties of our fellow-citizens, for the public prosperity
      and peace; and for you we implore the best reward of
      virtuous deeds--the grateful approbation of your
      constituents, and the smiles of Heaven.

                          WILLIAM BINGHAM,
                          _President of the Senate pro tempore_.

_Ordered_, That the committee who drafted the Address wait on the VICE
PRESIDENT, with the Answer of the Senate.


THURSDAY, February 23.

Mr. SEDGWICK reported, from the committee, that, agreeably to order,
they had waited on the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, with the
answer to his Address, on retiring from the Senate--to which the VICE
PRESIDENT was pleased to make the following Reply:

      An Address so respectful and affectionate as this, from
      gentlemen of such experience and established character in
      public affairs, high stations in the Government of their
      country, and great consideration, in their several States,
      as Senators of the United States, will do me great honor,
      and afford me a firm support, wherever it shall be known,
      both at home and abroad. Their generous approbation of my
      conduct, in general, and liberal testimony to the
      undeviating impartiality of it, in my peculiar relation to
      their body, a character which, in every scene and
      employment of life, I should wish above all others to
      cultivate and merit, has a tendency to soften asperities,
      and conciliate animosities, wherever such may unhappily
      exist; an effect at all times to be desired, and in the
      present situation of our country, ardently to be promoted
      by all good citizens.

      I pray the Senate to accept my sincere thanks.

                          JOHN ADAMS.


WEDNESDAY, March 1.

_Executive Veto on the Army Bill._

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES having stated his objections to the
bill, entitled "An act to alter and amend an act, entitled 'an act to
ascertain and fix the Military Establishment of the United States,'" the
House of Representatives proceeded to consider the objections to the
said bill, and have resolved that it do not pass.




SPECIAL SESSION


SATURDAY, March 4.

_Installation of Thomas Jefferson as Vice President of the United States
and President of the Senate, and inauguration of John Adams as President
of the United States._

      _To the Vice President and Senators of the United States
      respectively_:

      SIR: It appearing to be proper that the Senate of the
      United States should be convened on Saturday, the fourth of
      March instant, you are desired to attend in the Chamber of
      the Senate, on that day at ten o'clock in the forenoon, to
      receive any communications which the President of the
      United States may then lay before you touching their
      interests.
                          G. WASHINGTON.

      March 1, 1797.

In conformity with the summons from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
above recited, the Senate accordingly assembled in their Chamber.

PRESENT:

THOMAS JEFFERSON, Vice President of the United States and President of
the Senate.

JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire.

THEODORE SEDGWICK and BENJAMIN GOODHUE, from Massachusetts.

THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island.

JAMES HILLHOUSE and URIAH TRACY, from Connecticut.

ELIJAH PAYNE and ISAAC TICHENOR, from Vermont.

JOHN LAURANCE, from New York.

RICHARD STOCKTON, from New Jersey.

JAMES ROSS and WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania.

JOHN VINING and HENRY LATIMER, from Delaware.

JOHN HENRY and JOHN E. HOWARD, from Maryland.

HENRY TAZEWELL and STEVENS T. MASON, from Virginia.

JOHN BROWN and HUMPHREY MARSHALL, from Kentucky.

ALEXANDER MARTIN and TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from North Carolina.

WILLIAM BLOUNT, from Tennessee.

JACOB READ, from South Carolina.

JAMES GUNN and JOSIAH TATTNALL, from Georgia.

Mr. BINGHAM administered the oath of office to the VICE PRESIDENT, who
took the chair, and the credentials of the following members were read.

Of Mr. FOSTER, Mr. GOODHUE, Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. HOWARD, Mr. LATIMER, Mr.
MASON, Mr. ROSS, and Mr. TICHENOR.

And the oath of office being severally administered to them by the VICE
PRESIDENT, they took their seats in the Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT then addressed the Senate as follows:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      Entering on the duties of the office to which I am called,
      I feel it incumbent on me to apologize to this honorable
      House for the insufficient manner in which I fear they may
      be discharged. At an earlier period of my life, and through
      some considerable portion of it, I have been a member of
      Legislative bodies, and not altogether inattentive to the
      forms of their proceedings; but much time has elapsed since
      that; other duties have occupied my mind, and, in a great
      degree, it has lost its familiarity with this subject. I
      fear that the House will have but too frequent occasion to
      perceive the truth of this acknowledgment. If a diligent
      attention, however, will enable me to fulfil the functions
      now assigned me, I may promise that diligence and attention
      shall be sedulously employed. For one portion of my duty, I
      shall engage with more confidence, because it will depend
      on my will and not my capacity. The rules which are to
      govern the proceedings of this House, so far as they shall
      depend on me for their application, shall be applied with
      the most rigorous and inflexible impartiality, regarding
      neither persons, their views, nor principles, and seeing
      only the abstract proposition subject to my decision. If,
      in forming that decision, I concur with some and differ
      from others, as must of necessity happen, I shall rely on
      the liberality and candor of those from whom I differ, to
      believe, that I do it on pure motives.

      I might here proceed, and with the greatest truth, to
      declare my zealous attachment to the Constitution of the
      United States, that I consider the union of these States as
      the first of blessings and as the first of duties the
      preservation of that constitution which secures it; but I
      suppose these declarations not pertinent to the occasion of
      entering into an office whose primary business is merely to
      preside over the forms of this House, and no one more
      sincerely prays that no accident may call me to the higher
      and more important functions which the constitution
      eventually devolves on this office. These have been justly
      confided to the eminent character which has preceded me
      here, whose talents and integrity have been known and
      revered by me through a long course of years, have been the
      foundation of a cordial and uninterrupted friendship
      between us, and I devoutly pray he may be long preserved
      for the government, the happiness, and prosperity, of our
      common country.[1]

On motion, it was agreed to repair to the Chamber of the House of
Representatives to attend the administration of the oath of office to
JOHN ADAMS, President of the United States; which the Senate accordingly
did; and, being seated, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (attended by
the Heads of Departments, the Marshal of the District and his officers)
came into the Chamber of the House of Representatives and took his seat
in the chair usually occupied by the SPEAKER. The VICE PRESIDENT and
Secretary of the Senate were seated in advance, inclining to the right
of the PRESIDENT, the late SPEAKER of the House of Representatives and
Clerk on the left, and the Justices of the Supreme Court were seated
round a table in front of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The late
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, the great and good WASHINGTON,[2] took a
seat, as a private citizen, a little in front of the seats assigned for
the Senate, which were on the south side of the House, the foreign
Ministers and members of the House of Representatives took their usual
seats--a great concourse of both sexes being present. After a short
pause, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES arose, and communicated the
following Address:

      "When it was first perceived, in early times, that no
      middle course for America remained, between unlimited
      submission to a foreign Legislature, and a total
      independence of its claims, men of reflection were less
      apprehensive of danger, from the formidable power of fleets
      and armies they must determine to resist, than from those
      contests and dissensions, which would certainly arise
      concerning the forms of government to be instituted over
      the whole and over the parts of this extensive country.
      Relying, however, on the purity of their intentions, the
      justice of their cause, and the integrity and intelligence
      of the people, under an overruling Providence, which had so
      signally protected this country from the first, the
      Representatives of this nation, then consisting of little
      more than half its present number, not only broke to pieces
      the chains which were forging, and the rod of iron that was
      lifted up, but frankly cut asunder the ties which had bound
      them, and launched into an ocean of uncertainty.

      "The zeal and ardor of the people, during the Revolutionary
      war, supplying the place of government, commanded a degree
      of order, sufficient at least for the preservation of
      society. The Confederation, which was early felt to be
      necessary, was prepared from the models of the Batavian and
      Helvetic Confederacies, the only examples which remain,
      with any detail and precision, in history, and certainly
      the only ones which the people at large had ever
      considered. But, reflecting on the striking difference, in
      many particulars, between this country and those where a
      courier may go from the seat of Government to the frontier
      in a single day, it was then certainly foreseen by some who
      assisted in Congress at the formation of it, that it could
      not be durable.

      "Negligence of its regulations, inattention to its
      recommendations, if not disobedience to its authority, not
      only in individuals but in States, soon appeared, with
      their melancholy consequences: universal languor;
      jealousies and rivalries of States; decline of navigation
      and commerce; discouragement of necessary manufactures;
      universal fall in the value of lands and their produce;
      contempt of public and private faith; loss of consideration
      and credit with foreign nations; and, at length, in
      discontents, animosities, combinations, partial
      conventions, and insurrection, threatening some great
      national calamity.

      "In this dangerous crisis, the people of America were not
      abandoned by their usual good sense, presence of mind,
      resolution, or integrity. Measures were pursued to concert
      a plan, 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. The public disquisitions,
      discussions, and deliberations, issued in the present happy
      constitution of Government.

      "Employed in the service of my country abroad, during the
      whole course of these transactions, I first saw the
      Constitution of the United States in a foreign country.
      Irritated by no literary altercation, animated by no public
      debate, heated by no party animosity, I read it with great
      satisfaction, as a result of good heads, prompted by good
      hearts; as an experiment, better adapted to the genius,
      character, situation, and relations, of this nation and
      country, than any which had ever been proposed or
      suggested. In its general principles and great outlines, it
      was conformable to such a system of government as I had
      ever most esteemed, and in some States, my own native State
      in particular, had contributed to establish. Claiming a
      right of suffrage, in common with my fellow-citizens, in
      the adoption or rejection of a constitution which was to
      rule me and my posterity, as well as them and theirs, I did
      not hesitate to express my approbation of it, on all
      occasions, in public and in private. It was not then, nor
      has been since, any objection to it, in my mind, that the
      Executive and Senate were not more permanent. Nor have I
      ever entertained a thought of promoting any alteration in
      it, but such as the people themselves, in the course of
      their experience, should see and feel to be necessary or
      expedient, and by their Representatives in Congress and the
      State Legislatures, according to the constitution itself,
      adopt and ordain.

      "Returning to the bosom of my country, after a painful
      separation from it, for ten years, I had the honor to be
      elected to a station under the new order of things, and I
      have repeatedly laid myself under the most serious
      obligations to support the constitution. The operation of
      it has equalled the most sanguine expectations of its
      friends, and from an habitual attention to it, satisfaction
      in its administration and delight in its effects upon the
      peace, order, prosperity, and happiness of the nation, I
      have acquired an habitual attachment to it, and veneration
      for it.

      "What other form of government, indeed, can so well deserve
      our esteem and love?

      "There may be little solidity in an ancient idea that
      congregations of men into cities and nations are the most
      pleasing objects in the sight of superior intelligences:
      but this is very certain, that, to a benevolent human mind,
      there can be no spectacle presented by any nation more
      pleasing, more noble, majestic, or august, than an assembly
      like that which has so often been seen in this and the
      other chamber of Congress, of a Government, in which the
      Executive authority, as well as that of all the branches of
      the Legislature, are exercised by citizens selected, at
      regular periods, by their neighbors, to make and execute
      laws for the general good. Can any thing essential, any
      thing more than mere ornament and decoration, be added to
      this by robes and diamonds? Can authority be more amiable
      and respectable, when it descends from accidents, or
      institutions established in remote antiquity, than when it
      springs fresh from the hearts and judgments of an honest
      and enlightened people? For, it is the people only that are
      represented: it is their power and majesty that are
      reflected, and only for their good, in every legitimate
      Government, under whatever form it may appear. The
      existence of such a Government as ours, for any length of
      time, is a full proof of a general dissemination of
      knowledge and virtue throughout the whole body of the
      people. And what object or consideration more pleasing than
      this can be presented to the human mind? If national pride
      is ever justifiable or excusable, it is when it springs,
      not from power or riches, grandeur or glory, but from
      conviction of national innocence, information, and
      benevolence.

      "In the midst of these pleasing ideas, we should be
      unfaithful to ourselves, if we should ever lose sight of
      the danger to our liberties, if any thing partial or
      extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair,
      virtuous, and independent elections. If an election is to
      be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that can
      be procured by a party, through artifice or corruption, the
      Government may be the choice of a party, for its own ends,
      not of the nation for the national good. If that solitary
      suffrage can be obtained by foreign nations, by flattery or
      menaces, by fraud or violence by terror, intrigue, or
      venality, the Government may not be the choice of the
      American people, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign
      nations who govern us, and not we the people who govern
      ourselves. And candid men will acknowledge, that, in such
      cases, choice would have little advantage to boast of, over
      lot or chance.

      "Such is the amiable and interesting system of Government
      (and such are some of the abuses to which it may be
      exposed) which the people of America have exhibited to the
      admiration and anxiety of the wise and virtuous of all
      nations, for eight years, under the administration of a
      citizen, who, by a long course of great actions, regulated
      by prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, conducting
      a people, inspired with the same virtues, and animated with
      the same ardent patriotism and love of liberty, to
      independence and peace, to increasing wealth and unexampled
      prosperity, has merited the gratitude of his
      fellow-citizens, commanded the highest praises of foreign
      nations, and secured immortal glory with posterity.

      "In that retirement which is his voluntary choice, may he
      long live to enjoy the delicious recollection of his
      services, the gratitude of mankind, the happy fruits of
      them to himself and the world, which are daily increasing,
      and that splendid prospect of the future fortunes of this
      country, which is opening from year to year. His name may
      be still a rampart, and the knowledge that he still lives a
      bulwark, against all open or secret enemies of his
      country's peace. His example has been recommended to the
      imitation of his successors, by both Houses of Congress,
      and by the voice of the Legislatures and the people
      throughout the nation.

      "On this subject it might become me better to be silent, or
      to speak with diffidence; but as something may be expected,
      the occasion, I hope, will be admitted as an apology, if I
      venture to say, that if a preference upon principle, of a
      free Republican Government, formed upon long and serious
      reflection, after a diligent and impartial inquiry after
      truth; if an attachment to the Constitution of the United
      States, and a conscientious determination to support it,
      until it shall be altered by the judgments and wishes of
      the people, expressed in the mode prescribed in it; if a
      respectful attention to the constitutions of the individual
      States, and a constant caution and delicacy towards the
      State Government; if an equal and impartial regard to the
      rights, interest, honor, and happiness, of all the States
      in the Union, without preference or regard to a Northern or
      Southern, an Eastern or Western position, their various
      political opinions on unessential points, or their personal
      attachments; if a love of virtuous men of all parties and
      denominations; if a love of science and letters, and a wish
      to patronize every rational effort to encourage schools,
      colleges, universities, academies, and every institution
      for propagating knowledge, virtue, and religion, among all
      classes of the people, not only for their benign influence
      on the happiness of life in all its stages and classes, and
      of society in all its forms, but as the only means of
      preserving our constitution from its natural enemies, the
      spirit of sophistry, the spirit of party, the spirit of
      intrigue, the profligacy of corruption, and the pestilence
      of foreign influence, which is the angel of destruction to
      elective governments; if a love of equal laws, of justice,
      and humanity, in the interior administration; if an
      inclination to improve agriculture, commerce, and
      manufactures, for necessity, convenience, and defence; if a
      spirit of equity and humanity towards the aboriginal
      nations of America, and a disposition to meliorate their
      condition, by inclining them to be more friendly to us, and
      our citizens to be more friendly to them; if an inflexible
      determination to maintain peace and inviolable faith with
      all nations, and that system of neutrality and impartiality
      among the belligerent powers of Europe, which has been
      adopted by this Government, and so solemnly sanctioned by
      both Houses of Congress, and applauded by the Legislatures
      of the States and the public opinion, until it shall be
      otherwise ordained by Congress; if a personal esteem for
      the French nation, formed in a residence of seven years,
      chiefly among them, and a sincere desire to preserve the
      friendship which has been so much for the honor and
      interest of both nations; if, while the conscious honor and
      integrity of the people of America, and the internal
      sentiment of their own power and energies must be
      preserved, an earnest endeavor to investigate every just
      cause, and remove every colorable pretence of complaint; if
      an intention to pursue, by amicable negotiation, a
      reparation for the injuries that have been committed on the
      commerce of our fellow-citizens by whatever nation, and, if
      success cannot be obtained, to lay the facts before the
      Legislature, that they may consider what further measures
      the honor and interest of the Government and its
      constituents demand; if a resolution to do justice, as far
      as may depend upon me, at all times and to all nations, and
      maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence, with all the
      world; if an unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, and
      resources of the American people, on which I have so often
      hazarded my all, and never been deceived; if elevated ideas
      of the high destinies of this country, and of my own duties
      towards it, founded on a knowledge of the moral principles
      and intellectual improvements of the people, deeply
      engraven on my mind in early life, and not obscured, but
      exalted by experience and age; and with humble reverence, I
      feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the
      religion of a people who profess and call themselves
      Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent
      respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for
      the public service, can enable me, in any degree, to comply
      with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor, that
      this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be
      without effect.

      "With this great example before me, with the sense and
      spirit, the faith and honor, the duty and interest, of the
      same American people, pledged to support the Constitution
      of the United States, I entertain no doubt of its
      continuance in all its energy, and my mind is prepared,
      without hesitation, to lay myself under the most solemn
      obligations to support it to the utmost of my power.

      "And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of
      Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector, in all
      ages of the world, of virtuous liberty, continue his
      blessing upon this nation and its Government, and give it
      all possible success and duration, consistent with the ends
      of His Providence."

The oath of office was then administered to him by the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of the United States, the Associate Justices
attending. After which, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES retired, and
the Senate repaired to their own Chamber.

On motion,

_Ordered_, That Messrs. LANGDON and SEDGWICK be a committee to wait on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that the Senate is
assembled, and ready to adjourn unless he may have any communications to
make to them.

Mr. LANGDON reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, who replied, that he had no
communication to make to the Senate, except his good wishes for their
health and prosperity, and a happy meeting with their families and
friends.

The Senate then adjourned without day.




FOURTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, December 5, 1796.

This being the day appointed by the constitution for the annual meeting
of Congress, in the House of Representatives, the following named
members appeared and took their seats, viz:

_From New Hampshire._--ABIEL FOSTER, NICHOLAS GILMAN, JOHN S. SHERBURNE,
and JEREMIAH SMITH.

_From Massachusetts._--FISHER AMES, THEOPHILUS BRADBURY, HENRY DEARBORN,
DWIGHT FOSTER, NATHANIEL FREEMAN, Jr., SAMUEL LYMAN, WILLIAM LYMAN, JOHN
READ, GEORGE THATCHER, JOSEPH B. VARNUM, and PELEG WADSWORTH.

_From Rhode Island._--FRANCIS MALBONE.

_From Connecticut._--JOSHUA COIT, CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, ROGER GRISWOLD,
NATHANIEL SMITH, and ZEPHANIAH SWIFT.

_From New York._--THEODORUS BAILEY, WILLIAM COOPER, EZEKIEL GILBERT,
HENRY GLENN, JONATHAN N. HAVENS, JOHN E. VAN ALLEN, PHILIP VAN
CORTLANDT, and JOHN WILLIAMS.

_From New Jersey._--JONATHAN DAYTON, AARON KITCHELL, and ISAAC SMITH.

_From Pennsylvania._--ALBERT GALLATIN, SAMUEL MACLAY, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS
MUHLENBERG, JOHN RICHARDS, SAMUEL SITGREAVES, and JOHN SWANWICK.

_From Delaware._--JOHN PATTON.

_From Maryland._--GEORGE DENT, WILLIAM HINDMAN, and RICHARD SPRIGG, Jr.

_From Virginia._--JOHN CLOPTON, ISAAC COLES, GEORGE JACKSON, JAMES
MADISON, ANTHONY NEW, and ROBERT RUTHERFORD.

_From Kentucky._--CHRISTOPHER GREENUP.

_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT and MATTHEW LOCKE.

_From South Carolina._--WILLIAM SMITH.

_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN.

The following new members appeared, produced their credentials, were
qualified, and took their seats, viz:

_From Tennessee._--ANDREW JACKSON.

_From Maryland._--WILLIAM CRAIK, in place of JEREMIAH CRABB, resigned.

_From Connecticut._--JAMES DAVENPORT, in place of JAMES HILLHOUSE,
appointed a Senator of the United States.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Governor of
Pennsylvania, with the return of the election of GEORGE EGE, to serve as
a member of the House in place of DANIEL HEISTER, resigned.

A quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being present,
it was ordered that the Clerk wait on the Senate, to inform them that
this House was ready to proceed to business; but it appeared that the
Senate had not been able to form a quorum by one member, and had
adjourned.

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH presented a petition from Thomas Lloyd, proposing to
take, in short-hand, and publish the Debates of Congress at $1,000 per
session salary. The expense of printing, &c. he estimated at $540, for
which he would furnish the House with five hundred copies of that work;
engaging to use every possible precaution, and pay prompt attention.

Mr. S. referred to the unfavorable reception of a proposal of this
nature at the last session, and supposed this would not be more
successful; however, he moved that it be referred to a committee.

The motion was agreed to, and Mr. W. SMITH, Mr. GALLATIN, and Mr. SWIFT,
were appointed to examine the petition, and report thereon to the House.


TUESDAY, December 6.

Several other members, to wit: from Vermont, ISRAEL SMITH; from New
Jersey, MARK THOMPSON; from Pennsylvania, RICHARD THOMAS; from Virginia,
CARTER B. HARRISON, JOHN HEATH, and ABRAHAM VENABLE; and from North
Carolina, JESSE FRANKLIN, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, JAMES HOLLAND, and
NATHANIEL MACON, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

The SPEAKER observed, that, as there were several returns of new
elections of members to serve in this session, it was proper that,
pursuant to a rule of the House, a Committee of Elections be appointed.

A committee was accordingly appointed, of Mr. VENABLE, Mr. SWIFT, Mr.
DENT, Mr. DEARBORN, Mr. BLOUNT, Mr. MUHLENBERG, and Mr. A. FOSTER.

Mr. MACON moved that a Committee of Revisal and Unfinished Business of
last session be appointed, pursuant to the Standing Rules and Orders of
the House, observing that, as the session would be but short, it would
be necessary to be early in the appointment of committees.

Whereon Mr. GILMAN, Mr. R. SPRIGG, Jr., and Mr. MACON were appointed.

Notice was received that a quorum of the Senate was formed.

On motion, it was, therefore, resolved, that a committee of three
members be appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in
conjunction with a committee from the Senate, to inform him that a
quorum of both Houses was assembled, and ready to receive any
communications that he may please to make. Mr. AMES, Mr. MADISON, and
Mr. SITGREAVES, were accordingly appointed.

A message was received from the Senate informing the House that they had
formed a quorum: whereupon the Clerk went to the Senate with the
resolution of this House. The Secretary soon after returned, informing
the House that the Senate had concurred in the resolution, and formed a
committee for that purpose.

Mr. AMES, from the committee appointed for that purpose, reported that
the committee had waited on the PRESIDENT, who was pleased to signify to
them that he would make a communication to both Houses of Congress
to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, in the Representatives' Chamber.


WEDNESDAY, December 7.

Another member, to wit, SAMUEL SEWALL, from Massachusetts, in place of
BENJAMIN GOODHUE, appointed a Senator of the United States, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

A message was sent to the Senate, informing them that this House was
ready, agreeably to appointment, to receive communications from the
PRESIDENT; whereon the Senate attended, and took their seats. At 12
o'clock the PRESIDENT attended, and, after taking his seat, rose and
delivered the following Address:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives_:

      In recurring to the internal situation of our country,
      since I had last the pleasure to address you, I find ample
      reason for a renewed expression of that gratitude to the
      Ruler of the Universe, which a continued series of
      prosperity, has so often and so justly called forth.

      To an active external commerce, the protection of a Naval
      force is indispensable: this is manifest with regard to
      wars in which a State is itself a party. But besides this,
      it is in our own experience, that the most sincere
      neutrality is not a sufficient guard against the
      depredations of nations at war. To secure respect to a
      neutral flag, requires a Naval force, organized and ready
      to vindicate it from insult or aggression. This may even
      prevent the necessity of going to war, by discouraging
      belligerent powers from committing such violations of the
      rights of the neutral party as may, first or last, leave no
      other option. From the best information I have been able to
      obtain, it would seem as if our trade to the Mediterranean,
      without a protecting force, will always be insecure, and
      our citizens exposed to the calamities from which numbers
      of them have but just been relieved.

      These considerations invite the United States to look to
      the means, and to set about the gradual creation of a Navy.
      The increasing progress of their navigation promises them,
      at no distant period, the requisite supply of seamen; and
      their means in other respects favor the undertaking. It is
      an encouragement likewise that their particular situation
      will give weight and influence to a moderate Naval force in
      their hands. Will it not, then, be advisable to begin,
      without delay, to provide and lay up the materials for the
      building and equipping of ships of war, and to proceed in
      the work by degrees, in proportion as our resources shall
      render it practicable without inconvenience; so that a
      future war of Europe may not find our commerce in the same
      unprotected state in which it was found by the present?

      Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed
      their attention to the encouragement of manufactures. The
      object is of too much consequence not to ensure a
      continuance of their efforts in every way which shall
      appear eligible. As a general rule, manufactures on public
      account are inexpedient. But where the state of things in a
      country leaves but little hope that certain branches of
      manufacture will for a great length of time obtain, when
      these are of a nature essential to the furnishing and
      equipping of the public force in time of war; are not
      establishments for procuring them on public account, _to
      the extent of the ordinary demand for the public service_,
      recommended by strong considerations of national policy, as
      an exception to the general rule? Ought our country to
      remain in such cases dependent on foreign supply,
      precarious, because liable to be interrupted? If the
      necessary articles should in this mode cost more in time of
      peace, will not the security and independence thence
      arising form an ample compensation? Establishments of this
      sort, commensurate only with the calls of the public
      service in time of peace, will, in time of war, easily be
      extended in proportion to the exigencies of the Government,
      and may even, perhaps, be made to yield a surplus for the
      supply of our citizens at large, so as to mitigate the
      privations from the interruption of their trade. If
      adopted, the plan ought to exclude all those branches which
      are already, or likely soon to be established in the
      country, in order that there may be no danger of
      interference with pursuits of individual industry.

      It will not be doubted that with reference either to
      individual or national welfare, agriculture is of primary
      importance. In proportion as nations advance in population,
      and other circumstances of maturity, this truth becomes
      more apparent, and renders the cultivation of the soil more
      and more an object of public patronage. Institutions for
      promoting it grow up, supported by the public purse; and to
      what object can it be dedicated with greater propriety?
      Among the means which have been employed to this end, none
      have been attended with greater success than the
      establishment of Boards, composed of proper characters,
      charged with collecting and diffusing information, and
      enabled by premiums, and small pecuniary aids, to encourage
      and assist a spirit of discovery and improvement. This
      species of establishment contributes doubly to the increase
      of improvement, by stimulating to enterprise and
      experiment, and by drawing to a common centre the results
      every where of individual skill and observation, and
      spreading them thence over the whole nation. Experience
      accordingly has shown that they are very cheap instruments
      of immense national benefits.

      I have heretofore proposed to the consideration of Congress
      the expediency of establishing a National University, and
      also a Military Academy. The desirableness of both these
      institutions has so constantly increased with every new
      view I have taken of the subject, that I cannot omit the
      opportunity of once for all recalling your attention to
      them.

      The Assembly to which I address myself is too enlightened
      not to be fully sensible how much a flourishing state of
      the arts and sciences contributes to national prosperity
      and reputation. True it is that our country, much to its
      honor, contains many seminaries of learning highly
      respectable and useful; but the funds upon which they rest
      are too narrow to command the ablest professors in the
      different departments of liberal knowledge for the
      institution contemplated, though they would be excellent
      auxiliaries.

      Amongst the motives to such an institution the assimilation
      of the principles, opinions, and manners of our countrymen,
      by the common education of a portion of our youth from
      every quarter, well deserves attention. The more
      homogeneous our citizens can be made in these particulars,
      the greater will be our prospect of permanent union; and a
      primary object of such a national institution should be the
      education of our youth in the science of Government. In a
      Republic, what species of knowledge can be equally
      important? and what duty more pressing on its Legislature,
      than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those who
      are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the
      country?

      The institution of a Military Academy is also recommended
      by cogent reasons. However pacific the general policy of a
      nation may be, it ought never to be without an adequate
      stock of military knowledge for emergencies. The first
      would impair the energy of its character, and both would
      hazard its safety, or expose it to greater evils when war
      could not be avoided: besides, that war might often not
      depend upon its own choice. In proportion as the observance
      of pacific maxims might exempt a nation from the necessity
      of practising the rules of the military art, ought to be
      its care in preserving and transmitting by proper
      establishments the knowledge of that art. Whatever argument
      may be drawn from particular examples, superficially
      viewed, a thorough examination of the subject will evince
      that the art of war is at once comprehensive and
      complicated; that it demands much previous study; and that
      the possession of it, in its most improved and perfect
      state, is always of great moment to the security of a
      nation. This, therefore, ought to be a serious care of
      every Government; and for this purpose an Academy, where a
      regular course of instruction is given, is an obvious
      expedient, which different nations have successfully
      employed.

      The compensations to the officers of the United States in
      various instances, and in none more than in respect to the
      most important stations, appear to call for Legislative
      revision. The consequences of a defective provision are of
      serious import to the Government.

      If private wealth is to supply the defect of public
      retribution, it will greatly contract the sphere within
      which the selection of character for office is to be made,
      and will proportionally diminish the probability of a
      choice of men, able, as well as upright. Besides, that it
      would be repugnant to the vital principles of our
      Government virtually to exclude from public trusts,
      talents, and virtue, unless accompanied by wealth.

      While in our external relations some serious inconveniences
      and embarrassments have been overcome, and others lessened,
      it is with much pain and deep regret I mention that
      circumstances of a very unwelcome nature have lately
      occurred. Our trade has suffered, and is suffering,
      extensive injuries in the West Indies, from the cruisers
      and agents of the French Republic; and communications have
      been received from its Minister here which indicate the
      danger of a further disturbance of our commerce, by its
      authority, and which are, in other respects, far from
      agreeable.

      It has been my constant, sincere, and ardent wish, in
      conformity with that of our nation, to maintain cordial
      harmony and a perfectly friendly understanding with that
      Republic. This wish remains unabated; and I shall persevere
      in the endeavor to fulfil it to the utmost extent of what
      shall be consistent with a just and indispensable regard to
      the rights and honor of our country; nor will I easily
      cease to cherish the expectation that a spirit of justice,
      candor, and friendship on the part of the Republic will
      eventually ensure success.

      My solicitude to see the Militia of the United States
      placed on an efficient establishment has been so often and
      so ardently expressed that I shall but barely recall the
      subject to your view on the present occasion; at the same
      time that I shall submit to your inquiry, whether our
      harbors are yet sufficiently secured.

      The situation in which I now stand, for the last time, in
      the midst of the Representatives of the people of the
      United States, naturally recalls the period when the
      administration of the present form of government commenced;
      and I cannot omit the occasion to congratulate you and my
      country on the success of the experiment; nor to repeat my
      fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe
      and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations, that His providential
      care may still be extended to the United States; that the
      virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved; and
      that the Government which they have instituted for the
      protection of their liberties may be perpetual.

                          G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _December 7, 1796_.

When the PRESIDENT had concluded his Address, he presented copies of it
to the PRESIDENT of the Senate and the SPEAKER of the House of
Representatives. The PRESIDENT and the Senate then withdrew, and the
SPEAKER took the Chair. The Address was again read by the Clerk, and on
motion, committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.


THURSDAY, December 8.

JAMES GILLESPIE, from North Carolina, appeared, and took his seat in the
House.

A new member, to wit, GEORGE EGE, from Pennsylvania, in place of DANIEL
HEISTER, resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified,
and took his seat.

_Address to the President._

On the motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the House went into a Committee of the
Whole on the PRESIDENT's Address, according to the order of the day. The
Speech was read by the Clerk.

Mr. D. FOSTER moved the following resolution: |

      "_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that
      a respectful Address ought to be presented from 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 the session, containing assurances that
      this House will take into consideration the many important
      matters recommended to their attention."

Which was unanimously agreed to, and Mr. AMES, Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. MADISON,
Mr. SITGREAVES, and Mr. W. SMITH were appointed a committee to draw up
the Address. The committee rose, and the resolution was adopted by the
House.


FRIDAY, December 9.

DAVID BARD, from Pennsylvania, JOSIAH PARKER, from Virginia, and NATHAN
BRYAN, from North Carolina, appeared and took their seats in the House.

_Address to the President._

The SPEAKER said, that it had been usual for the House to come to some
order on the PRESIDENT's Address, which was to refer it to a Committee
of the Whole on the state of the Union. On which Mr. WILLIAMS moved,
that it be committed to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union, which was done accordingly.

Mr. BAYLEY moved, that a Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be
appointed, when Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. SEWALL, Mr. COIT, Mr. PARKER, Mr.
BLOUNT, and Mr. DENT, were named for that committee.

Mr. BAYLEY then moved, that when this House adjourn, it adjourn till
Monday at eleven o'clock.

[The reason stated during the last session for the House not meeting to
do business on Saturdays was, that the standing committees were
numerous, besides many special committees for different purposes, whose
business was frequently very important and troublesome, it was therefore
necessary that Saturday be allowed for the committees to sit, else
business would be much protracted, and become too burdensome on
gentlemen in committees.]


MONDAY, December 12.

Several other members, to wit: from New York, EDWARD LIVINGSTON; from
Pennsylvania, ANDREW GREGG; from Maryland, GABRIEL CHRISTIE; from
Virginia, WILLIAM B. GILES, ANDREW MOORE, and JOHN NICHOLAS; and from
South Carolina, ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, appeared, and took their seats in
the House.


TUESDAY, December 13.

Two other members, to wit, THOMAS CLAIBORNE and JOHN PAGE, from
Virginia, appeared and took their seats in the House.

A new member, viz: WILLIAM STRUDWICK, from North Carolina, in place of
ABSALOM TATOM resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.

_Address to the President._

Mr. W. SMITH then moved for the order of the day on the report of the
committee in answer to the PRESIDENT's Address.

Mr. GILES said, that as the printed copy of the answer was but just laid
before the House, he hoped the gentleman would not insist on his motion,
as he declared he had not had time to read it; he would therefore move
that it be deferred till to-morrow.

Mr. PARKER seconded the motion. He said he was not able to judge whether
the answer would meet his approbation or not; he wished time to be given
for the consideration of it.

Mr. W. SMITH said he knew no instance in which the answer to the
PRESIDENT's Address had been laid over, and he thought it ought to be
despatched with all possible speed.

Mr. HEATH said, he hoped his colleague would not insist on his motion
for letting it lie over till to-morrow; he thought it could as well be
acted on to-day.

Mr. AMES observed, that it would look very awkward to let it lie over
till to-morrow, as it was very unusual, if not unprecedented, so to do;
he thought gentlemen might make up their minds about it if laid on the
table about an hour; they could, in the mean time, despatch other
business, which would come before them.

Mr. GILES said, he had experienced extreme inconvenience from gentlemen
pressing for a subject before it had been matured in the minds of
members; he thought it would be extremely improper and unusual, and in
its consequences disagreeable, to go into the subject before gentlemen
had time to reflect on it.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, that the more expeditious the House were on the
answer to the PRESIDENT's Address the greater the effect of it would be.
He hoped, therefore, that there would be no delay. He had in
recollection a Message which was received from the PRESIDENT respecting
the Colors of the French Republic, at the last session. Those very
gentlemen who now wished a delay, then thought that, to let the subject
lie over, would lose its principal effect, although several of the
members wished it to lie over, and but for one day. Surely we have as
much respect for the PRESIDENT as we have for the French Republic. He
really hoped the business would not lie over.

Mr. W. LYMAN hoped gentlemen did not look upon this answer to the
PRESIDENT's Address as merely complimentary. He declared he took it up
in a very different light; he viewed it as of the most extensive
consequence; it related to the subjects recommended to the notice of the
House by the PRESIDENT, which might relate to the alteration of the
laws, and, perhaps, to the forming new laws; and could gentlemen have
time to form their minds on such an important part of their business? He
had only seen the report this morning, and hoped he should have time to
consider it before it passed through the House.

The SPEAKER said, that the subject before the House now was, whether the
unfinished business should be postponed in order to make room for a
Committee of the Whole to sit on the report of the committee on the
answer?

Mr. PARKER observed, that he could not say whether he approved or
disapproved of the answer before the House. He had not read the report;
he therefore hoped that the unfinished business would be taken up and
this postponed: he thought it was too important to be hastened. He
wished gentlemen to be very careful how they committed themselves at a
juncture so critical, and on business so momentous. We had just been
told by the PRESIDENT that we did not stand well with the French nation;
and the Senate, in their answer, had accorded with his observations on
that subject. [Mr. P. was here informed that the business of the Senate
ought not to be introduced here.[3]] He therefore hoped a day might be
allowed to take the subject into consideration.

Mr. WILLIAMS said, he had searched and could find no precedent in the
journal to encourage a delay of this business. He found that when a
report was made by the committee on such an occasion, it was usual to be
taken up by a Committee of the whole House; and if gentlemen disagreed
on the subject, it should be recommitted to the same committee who
formed it, to make such alterations whereby it may meet more general
approbation, or be amended by the House and passed. He hoped no new
precedent would be made.

The SPEAKER again observed, that the question was on postponing the
unfinished business to take up this report.

Mr. W. SMITH said, that if this business was delayed, it ought to be for
substantial reasons. The principal reason gentlemen had urged was, that
they had not had time to acquaint themselves with the answer. How, then,
he asked, could they make their observations on it as they had done? The
committee had, he thought, drafted it in such general terms that it
could not be generally disapproved. There are but two parts in which he
thought there would be differences of opinion, viz: that which related
to the French Republic, and that which complimented the PRESIDENT for
his services. As to the first, he thought it so expressed as to need no
delay in the answer. With respect to the latter, he hoped no gentleman
would refuse to pay a due regard to the PRESIDENT's services.

The SPEAKER again informed the House what was the question.

Mr. W. SMITH said, we ought not now to reflect on any thing we may judge
has not been done as we could wish. Could we refuse a tribute of respect
to a man who had served his country so much? He thought a delay at
present would have a very unpleasant appearance. He hoped we should go
into this business immediately, agreeably to the former practice of the
House on similar occasions. The unfinished business was yesterday
postponed for want of proper information, and he thought the same reason
was yet in force with respect to it. He hoped nothing would impede this
business, lest it should appear like a want of respect in us. He hoped
to see a unanimous vote in favor of a respectful answer to the Chief
Magistrate, whose services we ought zealously to acknowledge.

Mr. GILBERT saw no reason to depart from a practice which had been
usual; he therefore hoped the report might come under consideration
to-day. He thought if it laid on the table an hour or an hour and a
half, gentlemen could then be prepared to consider it.

The SPEAKER again put the House in mind of the question.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, if the business was pressed too precipitately,
gentlemen may be sensible of their error when it was too late. Many bad
consequences might attend hastening the subject before it was well
matured. He could see no reason why the business should be precipitated
upon the House--a proper delay would not show any want of respect to the
PRESIDENT, as some gentlemen think. Would it be more respectful that an
answer should be sent by this House, which, for want of time, had not
been sufficiently considered? Certainly not. Far more so will it appear
that after mature deliberation the members are unanimous in their
answer. I therefore think the object of respect which the gentleman from
North Carolina has in view will be completely answered by the delay.

Gentlemen talk about precedent. I am ashamed to hear them. There may be
no precedent on the subject. But are we always to act by precedent?
There is scarcely a circumstance occurs in this House but what is
different from any that was before it. The PRESIDENT's Addresses to this
House are always different. They relate to the circumstances of things
that are, have been, and may be. Then, to talk of precedents where
things cannot be alike, is to trammel men down by rules which would be
injurious in the issue.

The Message of the PRESIDENT respecting the French Colors had been
referred to. If gentlemen were then wrong, is that a reason why they
should continue to act wrong? But this circumstance materially differs
from that. That was merely an expression of sentiment, which could at
once be determined, but this of sentiment, accompanied with deep and
solemn reflection--it is so interwoven with the politics of the country
as to require great circumspection. I hope gentlemen will not go into it
until they are properly prepared. I wish to pay all possible respect to
the Chief Magistrate, and cannot prove it better than by a sincere
desire for an unanimous vote to the answer, which is only to be obtained
by proper deliberation; and thus let him depart from his office with
credit, and the enjoyment of our best wishes in his retirement.

The question for postponing the unfinished business to take up this
report was then put and negatived--43 to 31.


WEDNESDAY, December 14.

THOMAS HENDERSON, from New Jersey, and THOMAS HARTLEY, from
Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats in the House.

_Reporting of the Debates._

Mr. W. SMITH moved for the order of the day on the petitions of Thomas
Lloyd and Thomas Carpenter, whereupon the House resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole, when, having read the report of the committee to
whom it was referred,

Mr. MACON wished some gentleman who was in that committee, would be so
good as to inform the House what would be the probable expense, and for
what reason the House should go into the business. He thought the
expense altogether unnecessary, whatever it may be.

If the debates of this House were to be printed, and four or five copies
given to each member, they would employ all the mails of the United
States. He also adverted to the attempt at the last session to introduce
a stenographer into the House, which failed.

Mr. SMITH informed the gentleman that Mr. Lloyd's estimate of the
expenses is, that he will supply the House with his reports at the rate
of three cents per half sheet. His calculation is that he can supply the
members at the expense of about $1,600 for the session. With respect to
the gentleman's reference to last session, this was materially different
from that: that motion was to make the person an officer of this House,
and at an expense much greater. He thought this attempt would be of
great use to the House. Regular and accurate information of the debates
in the House would be a very desirable thing; he therefore hoped the
resolution would prove agreeable to the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS said, that the House need not go into unnecessary expense:
the members were now furnished, morning and evening, with newspapers,
which contained the debates; then why should the House wish for more? If
one person in particular has the sale of his debates to this House,
will it not destroy the advantages any other can derive from it? We
ought not to encourage an undertaking of this kind, but let us encourage
any gentleman to come here and take down the debates. Last year they
were taken down very accurately and dispersed throughout the Union.

By passing this resolution you will destroy the use of the privilege to
any other than the person favored by this House. Why give one a
privilege more than another? He observed, it had been common to give
gentlemen the privilege to come into the House and take down the
debates, which had been, last year, delivered time enough to give
satisfaction to the members.

Mr. THATCHER said, he should wish for information from the committee how
many persons there were to publish debates, as he understood there were
several, and the members were to supply themselves from whom they
pleased. He should likewise wish for information, how many each member
was to have to amount to the value of $1,600.

Mr. W. SMITH said, there had been petitions received from only two
persons--Thomas Lloyd and Thomas Carpenter. They intended, each of them,
to publish the debates. There might be others; he knew not. There was no
intention of giving any one a preference--gentlemen could subscribe for
that they approved of most. At the calculation of Mr. Lloyd the members
would have five copies each for the $1,600.

Mr. W. LYMAN said, the question was, whether the House would incur the
expense of $1,600 to supply the members with copies or not? He thought
there was no need of the expense. If the House do not think proper to
furnish the members, they can supply themselves. A publication of them
is going on at present, and many gentlemen had subscribed to it already.

Mr. DEARBORN did not think that $1,600 thus laid out would be expended
to the best possible advantage. From the number of persons which we see
here daily taking down debates, he thought we might expect to see a good
report of the occurrences in the House. There was a book going about for
subscriptions, which appeared to be well encouraged; he saw many of the
members' names in it. He thought that, by a plan like that, the reports
may be as accurately taken as we may have any reason to expect if the
House incurs this expense.

Mr. NICHOLAS observed, that members were now served with three
newspapers. He thought to vote for this resolution on account of
obtaining a more full and complete report than was to be had in the
newspapers; thus it would supersede the necessity of taking so many
papers. He thought this plan more useful to the members, and generally
of more advantage to their constituents, as they could disperse those
debates where otherwise they would not be seen.

Mr. THATCHER said, if the object of the motion was to supersede the
receiving of newspapers, he certainly should vote against it. He did
not consider the main reason why members were served with the newspapers
was, that they may obtain the debates. No. He thought it more important,
in their stations, that they should know the occurrences of the day from
the various parts of the United States as well as from foreign nations.
Though he might favor an undertaking of this kind, yet he would give
preference to a newspaper, if they were to have the one without the
other.

Mr. HEATH did not wish that the members, being furnished with debates
agreeably to the motion, should supersede the receiving of newspapers,
yet he should vote for it. Gentlemen had said the debates were taken
more correctly last session than before, yet he had heard a whisper
which was going from North to South, that our debates are not
represented impartially. He wished the House and the people to be
furnished with a true report; such a thing would be very useful:
however, he did not wish to encourage a monopoly to those two persons.
No. He would wish to give an equal chance to all who choose to come and
take them. Shall we repress truth? I hope not; but disseminate it as
much as possible. Last session, when I was, under the act of God's
providence, prevented from attending the House, a member sent for a
gentleman from Virginia, who was to act as stenographer, with whom the
House and a printer in this city were to combine. Warm debates ensued on
the propriety of the measure, and the gentleman returned home after the
motion was negatived. I hope gentlemen will not grudge 1,600 dollars
towards the support of truth. What we see now in the newspapers is taken
from the memory, and not by a stenographer. The people will thank you
that you have taken means to investigate truth. If any gentleman can
point out a better mode to obtain this object, I hope he will do it that
it may be adopted; till then I shall support the resolution.

Mr. SHERBURNE did not think, with the gentleman last up, that the
interest of the country was concerned; the only thing they were
concerned in was the payment of the money. The printing of this work did
not depend on the motion of this House. Whether the House adopt it or
not, the book will be published. It is a matter of private interest; a
speculation in the adventurer, like other publications. The question, he
conceived, meant only this: Should the members be supplied with these
pamphlets at the expense of the public, or should they put their hands
in their own pockets and pay for them individually? He thought the House
had no greater reasons to supply the members with this work than other
publications; they might as well be furnished with the works of _Peter
Porcupine_, or the _Rights of Man_, at the public expense.

Mr. W. SMITH said, the gentleman was mistaken with respect to the work
going on, whether supported by the House or not. It was true as it
respected the work proposed by Mr. Carpenter; but, with respect to Mr.
Lloyd, he declared he could not undertake it, except the House would
subscribe for five copies for each member.

Mr. SWANWICK considered the question to be to this effect: whether the
debates be under the sanction of the House or not? A gentleman had said,
it will be a great service to the public to have a correct statement of
the debates. I think the most likely way to obtain it correctly is to
let it rest on the footing of private industry. We have a work, entitled
_The Senator_, in circulation. I have no doubt but the publisher will
find good account in the undertaking. Why should the House trouble
itself to sanction any particular work? Gentlemen would then have enough
to do every morning in putting the debates to rights before they were
published, as they would be pledged to the accuracy of the reports. I
never heard that, in the British House of Commons or Lords, such a
motion was ever made, nor have I ever heard of such in any other
country; then why should we give our sanction and incur a responsibility
for the accuracy of it. He said he should vote against the motion, but
would encourage such a work while it rested on the footing of private
adventure.

Mr. THATCHER said, he differed much from the gentleman last up, as it
respected the responsibility of the House on such a publication. He
thought it might as well be said, that because there had been a
resolution for the Clerk to furnish the members of this House with three
newspapers, the House was responsible for the truth of what those
newspapers contained; if it was so, he should erase his name from his
supply of them, as he thought, in general, they contained more lies than
truth. Two considerations might recommend the resolution. It would
encourage the undertaking, and also add to the stock of public
information: on either of these, he would give it his assent. Soon after
he came into the city, a paper was handed him with proposals for a
publication of this kind (_The Senator_). He, with pleasure, subscribed
to its support; as to general information, that was given already by
newspapers, and though each member was to be supplied with five copies,
yet very few would fall into hands where the newspapers did not reach.
The work would go forward at any rate. If he thought the work depended
on the motion, he should rejoice to give his vote toward its aid. On the
question being put, only nineteen gentlemen voted in favor of the
resolution; it was therefore negatived.

The committee then rose, and the House took up the resolution.

Mr. THATCHER observed, the question was put while he was inattentive: he
wished it to lie over till to-morrow.

Mr. GILES wished to indulge the gentleman in his desire.

Mr. THATCHER then moved for the vote of the House, whether the report of
the Committee of the Whole be postponed. Twenty-four members only
appearing for the postponement, it was negatived.

The question was then put, whether the House agreed to the report of the
Committee of the Whole and disagreed with the report of the select
committee; which appeared in the affirmative. The motion was therefore
lost.

_Address to the President._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
Answer to the PRESIDENT's Address; when the Answer reported by the
select committee was read by the Clerk, and then in paragraphs by the
Chairman, which is as follows:

      SIR: The House of Representatives have attended to your
      communication respecting the state of our country, with all
      the sensibility that the contemplation of the subject and a
      sense of duty can inspire.

      We are gratified by the information that measures
      calculated to ensure a continuance of the friendship of the
      Indians, and to maintain the tranquillity of the _interior_
      frontier, have been adopted; and we indulge the hope that
      these, by impressing the Indian tribes with more correct
      conceptions of the justice, as well as power of the United
      States, will be attended with success.

      While we notice, with satisfaction, the steps that you have
      taken in pursuance of the late treaties with several
      foreign nations, the liberation of our citizens who were
      prisoners at Algiers is a subject of peculiar felicitation.
      We shall cheerfully co-operate in any further measures that
      shall appear, on consideration, to be requisite.

      We have ever concurred with you in the most sincere and
      uniform disposition to preserve our neutral relations
      inviolate; and it is, of course, with anxiety and deep
      regret we hear that any interruption of our harmony with
      the French Republic has occurred; for we feel with you and
      with our constituents the cordial and unabated wish to
      maintain a perfectly friendly understanding with that
      nation. Your endeavors to fulfil that wish, (_and by all
      honorable means to preserve peace, and to restore that
      harmony and affection which have heretofore so happily
      subsisted between the French Republic and the United
      States_,) cannot fail, therefore, to interest our
      attention. And while we participate in the full reliance
      you have expressed on the patriotism, self-respect, and
      fortitude of our countrymen, we cherish the pleasing hope
      that a _mutual_ spirit of justice and moderation _on the
      part of the Republic_ will ensure the success of your
      perseverance.

      The various subjects of your communication will,
      respectively, meet with the attention that is due to their
      importance.

      When we advert to the internal situation of the United
      States, we deem it equally natural and becoming to compare
      the tranquil prosperity of the citizens with the period
      immediately antecedent to the operation of the Government,
      and to contrast it with the calamities in which the state
      of war still involves several of the European nations, as
      the reflections deduced from both tend to justify, as well
      as to excite, a warmer admiration of our free constitution,
      and to exalt our minds to a more fervent and grateful sense
      of piety towards Almighty God for the beneficence of His
      providence, by which its administration has been hitherto
      so remarkably distinguished.

      And while we entertain a grateful conviction that your
      wise, firm, and patriotic Administration has been signally
      conducive to the success of the present form of Government,
      we cannot forbear to express the deep sensations of regret
      with which we contemplate your intended retirement from
      office.

      As no other suitable occasion may occur, we cannot suffer
      the present to pass without attempting to disclose some of
      the emotions which it cannot fail to awaken.

      The gratitude and admiration of your countrymen are still
      drawn to the recollection of those resplendent virtues and
      talents which were so eminently instrumental to the
      achievement of the Revolution, and of which that glorious
      event will ever be the memorial. Your obedience to the
      voice of duty and your country, when you quitted
      reluctantly a second time the retreat you had chosen, and
      first accepted the Presidency, afforded a new proof of the
      devotedness of your zeal in its service, and an earnest of
      the patriotism and success which have characterized your
      Administration. As the grateful confidence of the citizens
      in the virtues of their Chief Magistrate has essentially
      contributed to that success, we persuade ourselves that the
      millions whom we represent participate with us in the
      anxious solicitude of the present occasion.

      Yet we cannot be unmindful that your moderation and
      magnanimity, twice displayed by retiring from your exalted
      stations, afford examples no less rare and instructive to
      mankind than valuable to a Republic.

      Although we are sensible that this event, of itself,
      completes the lustre of a character already conspicuously
      unrivalled by the coincidence of virtue, talents, success,
      and public estimation, yet we conceive that we owe it to
      you, sir, and still more emphatically to ourselves and to
      our nation (of the language of whose hearts we presume to
      think ourselves at this moment the faithful interpreters)
      to express the sentiments with which it is contemplated.

      The spectacle of a whole nation, the freest and most
      enlightened in the world, offering by its Representatives
      the tribute of unfeigned approbation to its first citizen,
      however novel and interesting it may be, derives all its
      lustre--a lustre which accident or enthusiasm could not
      bestow, and which adulation would tarnish--from the
      transcendent merit of which it is the voluntary testimony.

      May you long enjoy that liberty which is so dear to you,
      and to which your name will ever be so dear. May your own
      virtues and a nation's prayers obtain the happiest sunshine
      for the decline of your days and the choicest of future
      blessings. For your country's sake--for the sake of
      Republican liberty--it is our earnest wish that your
      example may be the guide of your successors; and thus,
      after being the ornament and safeguard of the present age,
      become the patrimony of our descendants.

Mr. VENABLE observed, on a paragraph wherein it speaks of the
"tranquillity of the interior frontier," he did not know what was the
meaning of the expression: he moved to insert "Western frontier" in its
stead.

Mr. AMES observed that the words of the report are in the PRESIDENT's
Speech; however, he thought the amendment a good one. It then passed.

In the fourth paragraph are these words: "Your endeavors to fulfil that
wish cannot fail, therefore, to interest our attention." At the word
"wish," Mr. GILES proposed to insert these words: "and by all honorable
means to preserve peace, and restore that harmony and affection which
have heretofore so happily subsisted between the French Republic and
this country;" and strike out the words that follow "wish" in that
paragraph. He said, his reasons for moving this amendment were to avoid
its consequences. He really wished the report entirely recommitted, as
there were many objectionable parts in it. He had been very seriously
impressed with the consequences that would result from a war with the
French Republic. When I reflect, said Mr. G., on the calamities of war
in general, I shudder at the thought; but, to conceive of the danger of
a French war in particular, it cuts me still closer. When I think what
many gentlemen in mercantile situations now feel, and the dreadful stop
put to commerce, I feel the most sincere desire to cultivate harmony and
good understanding. I see redoubled motives to show the world that we
are in favor of a preservation of peace and harmony.

Mr. W. SMITH said, he should not object to the amendment; but he thought
it only an amplification of a sentiment just before expressed. He did
not see any advantage in the sentiment as dilated, nor could he see any
injury which could accrue from it. He hoped every gentleman in the House
wished as sincerely for the preservation of peace as that gentleman did.

Mr. AMES wished to know of the gentleman from Virginia, whether he meant
to strike out the latter part of this paragraph; if he did, he would
object to it.

Mr. GILES said, he did not mean to strike out any more of this
paragraph.

Mr. AMES wished it not to be struck out. By the amendment to strike out,
we show the dependence we place on the power and protection of the
French. While we declare ourselves weak by the act, we lose the recourse
to our own patriotism, and fly, acknowledging an offence never
committed, to the French for peace. He hoped the gentleman would be
candid upon this occasion.

Mr. GILES said, he only wished this House to express their most sincere
and unequivocal desire in favor of peace, and not merely to leave it to
the PRESIDENT. He said, he had spoken upon this occasion as he always
had done on this floor. He always had, and he hoped always should state
his opinions upon every subject with plainness and candor.

The amendment passed unanimously.

Mr. GILES then proposed an amendment to the latter part of the same
paragraph which would make it read thus: "We cherish the pleasing hope
that a spirit of mutual justice and moderation will ensure the success
of your perseverance." The amendment was to insert the word "mutual." He
thought we ought to display a spirit of justice and moderation as well
as the French. This amendment, he thought, would soften the expression,
and, acting with that spirit of justice and moderation, accomplish a
reconciliation. The amendment was adopted.

On the Chairman's reading the last paragraph except one in the report,
which reads thus: "The spectacle of a whole nation, the _freest and most
enlightened in the world_," Mr. PARKER moved to strike out the words in
italic. Although, said he, I wish to believe that we are the freest
people, and the most enlightened people in the world, it is enough that
we think ourselves so; it is not becoming in us to make the declaration
to the world; and if we are not so, it is still worse for us to suppose
ourselves what we are not.

Mr. HARPER said he had a motion of amendment in his hand which would
supersede the necessity of the last made, which, if in order, he would
propose: it was to insert words more simple. He thought the more simple,
the more agreeable to the public ear. His amendment, he thought, would
add to the elegance and conciseness of the expression. He did not
disapprove of the Address as it now stood, but he thought it might be
amended. This, he said, would add to the dignity, as well as to the
simplicity of the expression. He thought it would be improper to give
too much scope to feeling: amplitude of expression frequently weakens an
idea.

Mr. GILES said he saw many objectionable parts in the amendments
proposed by the gentleman just sat down. He wished to strike out two
paragraphs more than Mr. HARPER had proposed; indeed, he wished the
whole to be recommitted, that it might be formed more congenial to the
wishes of the House in general, and not less agreeable to the person to
be addressed.

Mr. SMITH observed, that as the answer had been read by paragraphs
nearly to the close, he thought it very much out of order to return to
parts so distant.

The Chairman said that no paragraph on which an amendment had been made
could be returned to; but where no amendment had been made, it was quite
consistent with order to propose any one gentlemen may think proper.

Mr. W. SMITH opposed striking out any paragraph. It was, he said, the
last occasion we should have to address that great man, who had done so
much service to his country. The warmth of expression in the answer was
only an evidence of the gratitude of this House for his character. When
we reflect on the glowing language used at the time when he accepted of
the office of PRESIDENT, and at his re-election to that office, why,
asked he, ought not the language of this House to be as full of respect
and gratitude now as then? particularly when we consider the addresses
now flowing in from all parts of the country. I object to the manner of
gentlemen's amendments as proposed, to strike out all in a mass. If the
sentiments were agreeable to the minds of the House, why waste our time
to alter mere expressions while the sentiment is preserved? No doubt
every gentleman's manner of expression differed, while their general
ideas might be the same. He hoped mere form of expression would not
cause its recommitment.

Mr. GILES did not object to a respectful and complimentary Address being
sent to the PRESIDENT, yet he thought we ought not to carry our
expressions out of the bounds of moderation; he hoped we should adhere
to truth. He objected to some of the expressions in those paragraphs,
for which reason he moved to have the paragraphs struck out, in order to
be amended by the committee. He wished to act as respectful to the
PRESIDENT as any gentleman, but he observed many parts of the Address
which were objectionable. It is unnatural and unbecoming in us to exult
in our superior happiness, light, or wisdom. It is not at all necessary
that we should exult in our advantages, and thus reflect on the unhappy
situation of nations in their troubles; it is insulting to them. If we
are thus happy it is well for us; it is necessary that we should enjoy
our happiness, but not boast of it to all the world, and insult their
unhappy situation.

As to those parts of the Address which speak of the wisdom and firmness
of the PRESIDENT, he must object to them. On reflection, he could see a
want of wisdom and firmness in the Administration for the last six
years. I may be singular in my ideas, said he, but I believe our
Administration has been neither wise nor firm. I believe, sir, a want of
wisdom and firmness has brought this country into the present alarming
situation. If after such a view of the Administration, I was to come
into this House and show the contrary by a quiet acquiescence, gentlemen
would think me a very inconsistent character. If we take a view of our
foreign relations, we shall see no reason to exult in the wisdom or
firmness of our Administration. He thought nothing so much as a want of
that wisdom and firmness had brought us to the critical situation in
which we now stand.

If it had been the will of gentlemen to have been satisfied with placing
the PRESIDENT in the highest possible point of respect amongst men, the
vote of the House would have been unanimous, but the proposal of such
adulation could never expect success. If we take a view into our
internal situation, and behold the ruined state of public and private
credit, less now than perhaps at any former period however, he never
could recollect it so deranged. If we survey this city, what a shameful
scene it alone exhibits, owing, as he supposed, to the immense quantity
of paper issued. Surely this could afford no ground for admiration of
the Administration that caused it.

I must acknowledge, said Mr. GILES, that I am one of those who do not
think so much of the PRESIDENT as some others do. When the PRESIDENT
retires from his present station, I wish him to enjoy all possible
happiness. I wish him to retire, and that this was the moment of his
retirement. He thought the Government of the United States could go on
very well without him; and he thought he would enjoy more happiness in
his retirement than he possibly could in his present situation. What
calamities would attend the United States, and how short the duration of
its Independence, if one man alone can be found to fill that capacity!
He thought there were thousands of citizens in the United States able to
fill that high office, and he doubted not that many may be found whose
talents would enable them to fill it with credit and advantage. Although
much had been said, and that by many people, about his intended
retirement, yet he must acknowledge he felt no uncomfortable sensations
about it; he must express his own feelings, he was perfectly easy in
prospect of the event. He wished the PRESIDENT as much happiness as any
man. He declared he did not regret his retreat; he wished him quietly at
his seat at Mount Vernon; he thought he would enjoy more happiness there
than in public life. It will be very extraordinary if gentlemen, whose
names in the yeas and nays are found in opposition to certain prominent
measures of the Administration, should come forward and approve those
measures: this we could not expect. He retained an opinion he had always
seen reason to support, and no influence under Heaven should prevent him
expressing his established sentiments; and he thought the same opinions
would soon meet general concurrence. He hoped gentlemen would compliment
the PRESIDENT privately, as individuals; at the same time, he hoped such
adulation would never pervade that House.

I must make some observation, said Mr. G., on the last paragraph but
one, where we call ourselves "the freest and most enlightened nation in
the world:" indeed, the whole of that paragraph is objectionable; I
disapprove the whole of it. If I am free, if I am happy, if I am
enlightened more than others, I wish not to proclaim it on the house
top; if we are free, it is not prudent to declare it; if enlightened, it
is not our duty in this House to trumpet it to the world; it is no
Legislative concern. If gentlemen will examine the paragraph, [referring
to that contained in the parenthesis,] it seems to prove that the
gentleman who drew it up was going into the field of adulation; which
would tarnish a private character. I do think this kind of affection the
PRESIDENT gains nothing from. The many long Addresses we hear of, add
nothing to the lustre of his character. In the honor we may attempt to
give to others we may hurt ourselves. This may prove a self-destroyer;
by relying too much on administration, we may rely too little on our own
strength.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, that whatever division of the question gentlemen
would propose, was indifferent to him; the words of the answer were
perfectly congenial with his wishes, and he was prepared to give his
opposition to any of the amendments proposed. On mature deliberation,
there was not a sentiment in the report but he highly approved. He could
not see any thing unnatural or unbecoming in drawing just comparisons of
our situation with that of our neighbors; this is the only way we can
form a just view of our own happiness. It is a very necessary way to
come to a right knowledge of our own situation by comparing it with that
of other nations. He would not reproach another people because they are
not so happy as we are; but he thought drawing simple comparisons in the
way of the report was no reproach. He was not against bringing the
comparison down to private life, as the gentleman from Virginia had
done; he should think it wrong in a man to exult over his neighbor who
was distressed or ignorant, because himself was wealthy or wise. Yet he
saw no impropriety in his own family of speaking of their happiness and
advantages, compared with that of others; it would awaken in them a
grateful sense of their superior enjoyments, while it pointed out the
faults and follies of others, only in order that those he had the care
of may learn to avoid them: thus while our happiness is pointed out, the
miseries of nations involved in distress are delineated to serve as
beacons for the United States to steer clear of. He did not, with the
gentleman from Virginia, in any degree, doubt of the wisdom or firmness
of the Administration of America. In the language of the Address, he
entertained a very high opinion of it, "a grateful conviction that the
wise, firm, and patriotic Administration of the PRESIDENT had been
signally conducive to the success of the present form of Government."
Such language as this is the only reward which can be given by a
grateful people for labors so eminently useful as those of the PRESIDENT
had been. This was not his sentiment merely, it was the sentiment of the
people of America. Every public body were conveying their sentiments of
gratitude throughout the whole extent of the Union. Why then should this
House affect a singularity, when our silence on these points would only
convey reproach instead of respect. If these sentiments were true, why
not express them? But if, on the contrary, what the gentleman asserted,
that the Administration of the PRESIDENT had been neither wise, firm,
nor patriotic, then he would concur with the motion for striking out;
but he was not convinced of the truth of this assertion; and while this
is not proved, he should vote against the motion.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he could not agree with the motion of the gentleman
from South Carolina, (Mr. HARPER,) because his motion was for
substituting other words in the place of those in the report, without
any reason whatever. If the gentleman, by altering the phraseology, can
make the sentiment any better, by all means let it be done: but if the
sentiment is not to be changed, why alter it merely to substitute other
words? On the whole, Mr. S. observed, that he did not see the answer
could in any degree be reproached. There are no sentiments in it but
what are justifiable on the ground of truth; they are free from
adulation. It is such an expression of national regret and gratitude as
the circumstance calls for; a regret at the retirement of a faithful and
patriotic Chief Magistrate from office. A regret and gratitude which he
believed to be the sentiment of Americans.

Mr. SWANWICK began by observing that there were points in the Address in
which all gentlemen seemed to agree, while on other parts they cannot
agree. We all agree in our desire to pay the PRESIDENT every possible
mark of respect; but we very materially disagree wherein a comparison is
drawn between this and foreign nations. If we are happy and other
nations are not so, it is but well for us; but he thought it would be
much more prudent in us to let other nations discover it, and not make a
boast of it ourselves. It is very likely that those nations whom we
commiserate may think themselves as happy as we are: they may feel
offended to hear of our comparisons. If we refer to the British
Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speeches, he would tell us that is
the happiest and most prosperous nation upon earth. How then can we
commiserate with it as an unfortunate country? If, again, we look to
France, that country which we have pointed out as full of wretchedness
and distress, yet we hear them boast of their superiority of light and
freedom, and we have reason to believe not without foundation. A
gentleman had talked about the flourishing state of our agriculture, and
asserted that our late commercial calamities were not proofs of our want
of prosperity, which the gentleman compared to specks in the sun. That
gentleman speaks as though he lived at a distance. Has he heard of no
commercial distresses, when violations so unprecedented have of late
occurred? One merchant has to look for his property at Halifax, another
at Bermuda, another at Cape Françoise, another at Gonaives, &c.; all
agree that they have suffered, and that by the war. These are distresses
gentlemen would not like to feel themselves. Mr. S. said he had felt for
these occurrences. We are not exempt from troubles: probably we may have
suffered as much as other nations who are involved in the war. It is a
question whether France has been distressed at all by the war. She has
collected gold and silver in immense quantities by her conquests,
together with the most valuable stores of the productions of the arts;
as statues, paintings, and manuscripts of inestimable worth; and at sea
has taken far more in value than she has lost: besides, her armies are
subsisting on the requisitions her victories obtain. And has England
gained nothing by the war? If we hearken to Mr. Pitt, we may believe
they are very great gainers. Surely the islands in the West and East
Indies, Ceylon, and the Cape of Good Hope, the key to the East Indies,
are advantages gained; besides the quantity of shipping taken from our
merchants. Mr. S. thought if we were to compare, we should find those
nations had gained by the war, while we had lost; and of course there
was no reason for us to boast of our advantages.

Mr. W. SMITH next rose, and observed that gentlemen wished to compliment
the PRESIDENT, but took away every point on which encomium could be
grounded. One denies the prosperity of the country, another the free and
enlightened state of the country, and another refuses the PRESIDENT the
epithet of wise and patriotic.

Mr. GILES here rose to explain. If he was meant, he must think the
gentleman was wrong in his application. He said he had never harbored a
suspicion of the good intentions of the PRESIDENT, nor did he deny his
patriotism; but the wisdom and firmness of his Administration he had
doubted. He thought him a good meaning man, but often misled.

Mr. SMITH again rose, and said, he must confess himself at a loss for
that refinement to discover between the wisdom and patriotism of the
PRESIDENT, and that of his Administration. It was moved to strike out
this acknowledgment of wisdom and firmness. What were we to substitute
as complimentary to him in its place? The first paragraph proposed to be
struck out related to our speaking of the tranquillity of this country,
compared to nations involved in war. Could this give offence, because we
feel pleasure in being at peace? It was only congratulating our own
constituents on the happiness we enjoy. To appreciate the value of
peace, it was necessary to compare it with a state of war. It was the
wisdom of this country to keep from war, and other nations hold it up as
exemplary in us. The gentleman himself has declared his wish for the
preservation of peace; and though he admires it, and nations admire it
in us, yet we are not to compare our state with nations involved in the
calamities of war, in order to estimate our enjoyments. The words of
this Address are not a communication to a foreign minister, it is a
congratulation to our own Chief Magistrate of the blessings he, in
common with us, enjoys. Mr. S. hoped the words would not be struck out.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker), said, that he did not rise to accept the
challenge given by the gentleman who spoke last from South Carolina, and
to point out a nation more free and enlightened than ours; nor did he
mean to contest the fact of ours being the freest and most enlightened
in the world, as declared in the reported Address, but he was
nevertheless of opinion that it did not become them to make that
declaration, and thus to extol themselves by a comparison with, and at
the expense of all others. Although those words were in his view
objectionable, he was far from assenting to the motion for striking out
the seven or eight last clauses of the Address. The question of order
having been decided, Mr. D. said he would remind the committee, that if
they wished to retain, or even to amend, any section or sentence of all
that was proposed to be struck out, they ought to give their negatives
to this motion, as the only means of accomplishing their purpose. It was
sufficient, therefore, for those who were opposed to the question for
striking out the whole, to show that any part included within it ought
to be preserved. Not unnecessarily to waste time, by lengthening the
debate, he would take the clause first in order, and confine his remarks
to that alone. This part of the Address had certainly not been read, or
had been misunderstood and misrepresented by the member from
Pennsylvania.

Mr. AMES said, if gentlemen meant to agree to strike out the whole as
proposed, in order to adopt those words substituted by the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER), he must observe that he thought this
would be as far from giving satisfaction to others, who, it appeared,
wanted no substitute. He, therefore, hoped that kind of influence would
not prevail on this occasion. The gentleman who made the motion did it
to accommodate matters, and not because he himself objected to the
answer reported.

It is well known that a committee of five members, opposite in
sentiment, was appointed to prepare a respectful Address in answer to
the PRESIDENT's Speech. [Here the original instructions were read.] As
it was the duty of the committee to prepare a respectful Address, it
cannot be matter of surprise, although it may of disapprobation with
some, that the committee did their duty, and have taken notice of the
several matters recommended to the House in that Speech. Respecting the
particular notice they have taken, it might have been thought that some
difficulty would occur. He said he need not observe, that the committee
had reason to imagine that the form of the report would be agreeable to
the House, as they were unanimous; although there had been in the
wording some little difference of opinion, yet all agreed substantially
in the Address, from a conviction of the delicacy of the subject. For
that reason, if that only, unless the sentiments in the report of the
Address should be found inconsistent with truth, he hoped no substitute
of a form of words merely would prevail, as it would no longer be that
agreed to in the committee, nor could come under their consideration
equal to the printed report. He therefore trusted that when the
committee came to the question, whether to strike out or not, gentlemen
would be guided by no other motive to vote for striking out, than an
impropriety in the sentiments through an evident want of truth in them;
and if such cannot be discovered, why strike out the expressions?

It had been observed by some gentleman, that the cry of foreign
influence is in the country. He did not see such a thing exist. He would
not be rudely explicit as to the foundation there was for such a cry;
but when it was once raised, the people would judge whether it was fact
or not. He could not tell how this influence was produced, but the world
would draw a view how far we were under foreign influence. Mr. A. here
alluded to the influence which foreign agents wished to have over the
minds of the people of this country, in order to support a factious
spirit, probably to the appeal lately made to the people. He also
alluded to a circumstance when the Imperial Envoy, M. Palm, in 1727, at
London, published a rescript, complaining of the conduct of that Court;
the spirit of the nation rose, and discord was sown. In consequence of
which the Parliament petitioned the King to send the Envoy out of the
country for meddling with the concerns of their nation. That is the
nation which we call corrupted. Yet a similar affair has occurred here,
and it is not to be reprobated; we are not to complain of it, nor even
hear it, according to this doctrine. Independence is afraid of injuries,
and almost of insults. We must forbear to exult in our peace, our light,
our freedom, lest we should give offence to other nations who are not
so. This may be the high tone of independence in the views of some
people, but I must confess it is not so in mine; but it is probable
those people may be wiser than I am, and their views extend farther.
Foreign influence exists, and is disgraceful indeed, when we dare admire
our own constitution, nor adore God for giving us to feel its happy
effects. He thought, respecting the recent complaints of the French
Minister, that there was not even a pretext for the accusation.

It had been observed by a gentleman, that the PRESIDENT, no doubt, is a
very honest man, and a patriot, but he did not think him a wise man.

Mr. GILES here rose to explain. He said that, in his assertions, he
meant not to reflect on his private character. He referred to his
Administration. No doubt but the gentleman possessed both.

Mr. AMES said, he considered well what the gentleman had said. As a
private man, his integrity and goodness cannot be doubted; but in his
Administration--here we are to stop short; not a word about that; it
won't bear looking into; it has been neither firm nor wise. If the
House, in their Address to him, were to say, we think you a very honest,
well-designing man, but you have been led astray, sometimes to act
treacherously, and even dishonest in your Administration--we think you a
peaceful man, and though much iniquity may have been practised in your
Government, yet we think you are not in fault; on the whole, sir, we
wish you snugly in Virginia. Such sentiments as these I do not like. Is
this an Address or an insult? Is this the mark of respect we ought to
show to the first man in the nation? Mr. A. observed, that he did not
agree with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH), who said, that
the President would carry daggers in his heart with him into his retreat
from public life, if we refuse him our testimony of gratitude. No, he
bears in his breast a testimony of his purity of motive; a conscious
rectitude, while in public life, which daggers could not pierce. He
would retire with a good conscience; perhaps it would be said this was
adulation, but let it be remembered this was truth; this was not
flattery; let gentlemen deny this; let them prove that this is not the
will of their constituents. The country would judge our opinions when we
come to give our yeas or nays; then the real friends of that man would
be known.

The gentleman wishes him back to Virginia, was glad he designed to go;
he did not regret his resignation. His name will appear in that opinion.
The whole of the PRESIDENT's life would stamp his character. His
country, and the admiring world knew it; and history keeps his fame, and
will continue to keep it. We may be singular in our opinions of him, but
that will not make his character with the world the less illustrious. We
now are to accept of his resignation without a tribute of respect. We
are not to speak of him as either wise or firm. We can only say he is an
honest man: this would scarcely be singular; many a man is honest
without any other good qualifications. What circle would gentlemen fix
the committee in to amend this Address, if they are not to give scope to
these sentiments? Better appoint no committee at all. If we address the
PRESIDENT at all, I hope it will be respectfully, for loth respect is
insult in disguise. I hope we shall not alter the original draft of the
Address, but agree according to our former intentions to present a
respectful and cordial Address.

Mr. SWANWICK rose to explain to those parts of the observations of some
gentlemen who had lately spoken (Mr. DAYTON and Mr. AMES) on that part
of the paragraph, which speaks of our gratitude to Providence. He should
be sorry if such an idea was entertained from any thing he had observed.
It was not that part of the paragraph, but the part where we are
contrasted with other nations, that he objected to principally.
Although, he must observe, it was not spoken in a style common to
devotion, to tell Providence how wise and enlightened we were. It does
not boast of our philanthropy, to say how much wiser and better we are
than other nations. He thought the gentleman's reference to a clergyman
very curious. It would not be right in us to say to God, we thank thee,
we are wiser or more enlightened than others! If we are so, let us
rejoice in it, and not offend others by our boasting. Gentlemen say, we
are happier than though we were at war; are we at peace? No: we are
involved in the worst of wars. Witness our spoliations from Algerine,
English, and French cruisers, from some of which he himself had suffered
materially. The PRESIDENT does not think we are at peace: he recommends
a navy as the only efficient security to our commerce. How could that
little island (England) command such influence in foreign dominions? It
is by her navy. We cannot boast of such power. While we think ourselves
much happier and stronger than others, others think us more diminutive;
let us not boast. He feared that the revenues of this country would
suffer materially through the great stagnation of commerce. He did not
think they would be as productive as formerly. He feared it was too
generally known, that this was not a time of very great prosperity. As
he did not, for one, feel the prosperous situation of the country, he
could not consent to violate his feelings by speaking contrary to them.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. AMES) last session, spoke with
great eloquence and at great length of the horror of war; which he
considered as inevitable if the British Treaty (then the subject of
debate) was not carried into effect.

Mr. CHRISTIE moved for the committee to rise. The House divided on the
motion; 43 members appeared against it, 31 only in favor of it. It was
lost.

Mr. GILES rose and observed that he should not have troubled the
committee with any further observations, but his ideas had been
misrepresented; although he endeavored to prevent a possibility of
misconstruction, yet it seems he had not been able to accomplish his
wish. It was not wonderful, he said, that the PRESIDENT's popularity
should be introduced into the debate when it had been so long in
question. It had been too commonly done, he thought, but he hoped the
influence of it would not be very great. As to the unanimity of the
committee who drew up the Address, he cared very little about it; he
should be extremely sorry to see it have any influence on the members of
that House.

Gentlemen have said, that if we take out the expressions of our sense of
the wisdom and firmness of the Administration of the PRESIDENT, they
cannot find any ground on which to compliment him; if so, he for one
would not be willing to present an Address at all. But his views were
quite different; he thought it could be effectually done without
adulation. He could not consent to acknowledge the wisdom and firmness
of his Administration. Gentlemen had inquired for instances in evidence
of this assertion. He said, that without seeking for more instances,
that of the British Treaty was a standing proof in support of the
assertion. Though many gentlemen believe nothing has been done injurious
to the United States through that treaty, yet I acknowledge I see very
great danger; we are not now in that state of security which could be
wished. It is well known that the operation of the British Treaty is the
groundwork of all the recent complaints of the French Government. It may
be said that many of the complaints of the French Minister originated
from actions previous to the British Treaty. It may be so, but that was
the means of calling forth complaints which, perhaps, would otherwise
never have been made; else why did not this calamity befall us before?
It certainly may be ascribed to that instrument. Gentlemen may talk as
they please about the law of nations; but the law of nations is, that a
neutral nation shall not do any thing to benefit one belligerent power
to the injury of another. Mr. G. said, he thought matters carried a
serious aspect, and he very much disapproved of the declaration of a
gentleman (Mr. AMES) who says, now is the time of danger; we are on the
eve of a war with France, now let us boldly assert our rights. At the
time the British Treaty was debating on, that gentleman was overcome
with the prospect of a war; he then depicted it in horrible forms; but
now how different his language! He now seems not afraid to embrace all
its horrors, and was zealously calling out for the nation to support the
Administration. Why did we not hear this when the British spoliated on
our commerce! If we are upon the eve of a war with France, as the
gentleman supposes, it will be disastrous to this country; we have
reason to deplore it; it will be calamitous indeed. France has more
power to injure this country than any nation besides, and none we can
injure less. What an influence can she command over our commerce? She
can exclude us from our own ports; spoil our trade with Great Britain,
and from her own extensive country; she can shut us out from the East
Indies, as well as the West Indies; ruin our trade in the Mediterranean,
which, owing to the late conquests of the French, may be rendered very
flourishing and important to us; and by her alliance, offensive and
defensive, with Spain, we not only have another enemy, but lose our late
advantages in the navigation of the Mississippi. Suppose, by the
influence of her politics, the doctrine of liberty and equality were to
be preached on the other side of the Alleghany mountains, what numerous
enemies may they breed in our own country? France can wound us most, and
we have the least reason to provoke her. It would be policy in her to go
to war with us; by ruining our trade with England, she could give a
violent wound to her enemy; yet that gentleman says, now is the time to
assert our rights, now we are in danger. The war-whoop and the hatchet,
of which the gentleman spoke so feelingly last session, is no longer in
his thoughts. If this was the only reason he had, it would be enough to
influence his vote against an acknowledgment of the wisdom and firmness
that has dictated our Administration.

Mr. WILLIAMS rose and said, he was sorry to trouble the committee at
such a late hour, but he could not be satisfied with giving a silent
vote on an occasion when the PRESIDENT's popularity was doubted. He
thought members ought to speak the will of the people they represent. He
could assert that it was not merely his own opinion he spoke, but that
of his constituents, when he voted for the Address as reported. He was
sorry to hear the gentleman last up speak in the style he had done,
although he owned it was not altogether new to him. The gentleman
wished the first clause to be struck out. Mr. W. thought it was the duty
of every pious man to thank God for the benefits he enjoys. And shall
not we, as a nation, thank him for keeping us from a state of war?
Gentlemen's ideas were to strike the whole out in a mass; but he hoped
they would not be gratified. Mr. W. said, he was very sorry to hear the
gentleman speak against the wisdom and firmness of the PRESIDENT, which
assertion seemed to have its foundation in the Treaty concluded with
Great Britain. He would ask the gentleman whether that act of ours
should have any influence on our situation with France? Wherein have we
differed from the compact made with France by our treaty made with that
country? We surely had a right to treat with Great Britain, else we
could not be an independent nation; and France will not deny this. In
1778, the Ambassador of France informed the British Court that his
nation had entered into a treaty with the United States, and at the same
time informed them that great attention had been paid by the contracting
parties not to stipulate any exclusive advantage in favor of the French
nation, and that there was reserved, on the part of the United States,
the liberty of treating with any nation whatsoever upon the same footing
of equality and reciprocity. But the gentleman (Mr. GILES) says, we
ought not to give an advantage to an enemy. Mr. W. said, that no
advantage was given to Britain, but, on the contrary, the article
complained of must be of advantage to France; it is an encouragement for
American vessels to go to their ports; it insures them against loss, if
they are interrupted in their voyage. It had been said that it would be
to the interest of France to go to war with us; if they consider it so,
all that gentleman can say will not prevent it. When we reflect on a
Treaty entered into on this principle with Great Britain, should France
complain?


THURSDAY, December 15.

_Address to the President._

The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the answer to the PRESIDENT's Address, Mr.
MUHLENBERG in the chair.

The question before the committee was Mr. GILES' motion for striking
out.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he sincerely wished that such an answer might be
agreed to, as would give a general satisfaction. He hoped some mode
would be adopted to unite the wishes of every gentleman; his
disposition, he said, led him to vote for the paragraph; he thought
himself at liberty so to do, as he was satisfied the Administration had
been, in many instances, wise and firm. He thought it improper that such
debate should take place at the present time. He could see no
inconvenience that could arise from voting for the Address. The words on
which most stress had been laid, were those expressive of the wisdom
and firmness of the PRESIDENT's administration. He declared he thought
it had much contributed to the success of this country; and if success
had attended his measures, there could be nothing inconsistent in their
acknowledging it; which was all the compliment necessary to give
satisfaction.

Mr. RUTHERFORD.--My colleague has in a great measure anticipated my
sentiments on this occasion. I am sorry for the mistaken zeal the
gentlemen of the committee should have shown for the PRESIDENT, by
introducing expressions into the Address so exceptionable, and which
should be subject to such an uncomfortable exposure of that character.

I was able yesterday only to attend a part of the debate, through
indisposition, but what I did stay to hear, hurt me very much. I heard
gentlemen speak ill of the common parent of our country, whom we all
revere; and was a slip, but one criminal slip, to rob the PRESIDENT of
his good name? We have seen the goodness of the heart of that man, and
with satisfaction. We have seen him wrestling with his own feelings to
continue in the important and weighty business of Government; we have
seen him contending with two great rival nations, and yet preserved
peace. When he had made a slip, the people of America have stepped
forward to assist him, and dropped the generous tear, sensible that to
err is human, and that we are all liable to do wrong. I am sure that my
colleagues and every one in the House hold the character and virtue of
that man in high esteem. I am sorry to see that division of sentiment
which has taken place; it would make the world believe that we wish to
rob him of those qualifications. It is the justice and duty of this
House to do that man, that patriot, all the honor they can, whilst it is
the interest of this nation to hold in view those great points with
generous satisfaction, and good wishes to the man who has stepped
forward, and not in vain, to the support of our Republic in the war, and
under Divine assistance was made our deliverer. And now for gentlemen to
come here and speak of the troubles of the country, ascribing all our
adversity to him, it is like applying cold water where the strongest
energy is necessary. Again I would repeat, that if that man, our common
parent, has committed errors, it is no more than we all may do--it is
the general lot of all. If there have been faults in the Administration,
I do not think they lie at his door, but at his counsellors'; he has had
bad counsellors; his advisers are to blame, and not him. I never saw how
he could have done otherwise than he did. And now, sir, said Mr. R., it
is our duty to bear those great actions and generous sentiments in our
view, that, on his retirement from his public station, we may render him
all the respect due to his character. Nor would I less remember our
situation with France, that great and generous Republic, under whom we
owe our liberty. Let us not give offence to her, but by every mark of
gratitude and respect, act a part consistent with a just sense of our
peaceable intention. Let us act with the greatest circumspection and
deliberation.

Mr. LIVINGSTON was sorry the answer was not drafted so as to avoid this
debate. He said it was his sincere desire and hope that the candor of
gentlemen who advocated the Address in its present form, and those who
wished it amended, would so combine as to make it agreeable to all. He
said he intended to oppose the amendments which had been proposed,
although he did not see the Address every way right; with a view to
reconcile parties, when the present motion was disposed of, he should
move to strike out some words, in order to insert others. He could not,
like some gentlemen, draw consolation from the misfortunes of other
nations; their distresses were rather matter of regret; nor did he see a
propriety, as another gentleman had done, of likening our affairs with
those of the members of a family; but, even if it would bear, he could
not see that tranquillity in this family as was expressed. His only
objection, he said, to the paragraph in question, was the words
"tranquil prosperity." He believed the United States did not enjoy that
tranquil prosperity; on the contrary, he thought this was a time of
great calamity in the country, and he thought that it was owing,
principally, to the measures of the Government. There were other clauses
in the Address, he said, he should, when they came to be considered,
make objections to, and he thought they could be all easily removed by
motions suitable; however, he said there were many sentiments in the
Address in which he heartily concurred. He should vote against the
striking out the eight clauses in question, as he thought such
amendments could be proposed as would make the Address meet his hearty
concurrence, and he believed give general satisfaction.

Mr. GILES' motion was then put, to strike out those clauses, and
negatived.

Mr. PARKER renewed the motion he made yesterday, to strike out the words
"freest and most enlightened in the world."

Mr. AMES hoped that the motion to strike out would not prevail; for,
without being over tenacious on the subject, he must give a preference
to the copy of the report which was printed; the members had the
advantage of weighing it in their minds, which they would lose by
adopting the substitute; besides, he thought the ideas were so crowded
in that proposed, as to render it heavy; he hoped the reported Address
would be agreed to.

Mr. HARPER's motion was then put and negatived. Twenty-five members only
voting for the motion.

Mr. PARKER again moved to strike out "freest and most enlightened," &c.

Mr. W. SMITH said yesterday, in the discussion on the subject, gentlemen
had assigned for their reason to strike out those words that other
nations would be offended at us. It was usual, he said, for nations to
applaud themselves, and he thought it could give no offence to any. He
did not hear gentlemen mention what nation was meant. He presumed the
only nation that could be alluded to was the French Republic. If,
however, it can be proved that they have used similar language, he
supposed it would give gentlemen some ease as to this particular. In
looking over some papers, he had seen several bombastical expressions in
a note of Barthelemy, a report to the Convention of Laviere, and of
Cambaceres, in the name of the three committees. In one are these words,
"a Government so powerful as the French." In another, he calls it "the
most enlightened in the civilized world." In another, "the first in the
universe." He hoped that while that nation could use expressions like
these, the gentlemen of this House would not think the expressions
referred to would give offence to that or any other nation.

Mr. PARKER said, when he made the motion he did not refer to any
particular nation; he had neither France nor England in view; he did not
wish to see us contrast our political situation with that of any other
country. His objections to the words, he said, arose from our making the
declaration ourselves. Our Government, he acknowledged, was free; it was
the best, in his opinion, any where. He wished to believe the people as
enlightened as any other; he believed they were, and if they were not,
they had only themselves to blame; but however enlightened or free we
were, in his opinion, we were not the proper organs to declare it;
however enlightened we might be, he thought the last four years
Administration had convinced many, as well as himself, that the
Administration was not the most enlightened; if they had, they would not
have suffered such shameful spoliations on our commerce, and shameful
acts of cruelty to our seamen. He said the two little monarchies of
Denmark and Sweden, neither of which, in point of extent, can be
compared with the United States, more (to use the comparison of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania yesterday) than a speck is to the sun; nor
are they either of them in population nearly equal to the United States;
and although they are surrounded by the greatest warlike powers in a
belligerent state, yet they have preserved their neutrality inviolate;
their ships have not been wantonly seized, nor have their seamen been
torn from their ships, or whipped at the gang-way of British
ships-of-war, or been shot by their press-gangs. To mention the
instances of British cruelty towards our seamen in every instance that
could be adduced, would take up time unnecessarily; one alone, that
recently happened, I shall relate:

The brother of a member of this House (Mr. FRANKLIN, of N. C.) was
impressed on board a British ship-of-war in the West Indies; he was
unacquainted with seamanship, having only made a passage from North
Carolina to the Islands; being awkward and not being a seaman, he was
discharged. The same evening, a press-gang of the same ship fell in
with him and made him a prisoner; in attempting to make his escape, he
was shot at. The ball was aimed at his body; it was not winged with
death, but the young man was wounded in the hand.

Mr. AMES said, if any man were to call himself more free and enlightened
than his fellows, it would be considered as arrogant self-praise. His
very declaration would prove that he wanted sense as well as modesty,
but a nation might be called so, by a citizen of that nation, without
impropriety; because, in doing so, he bestows no praise of superiority
on himself; he may be in fact, and may be sensible that he is less
enlightened than the wise of other nations. This sort of national
eulogium may, no doubt, be fostered by vanity, and grounded in mistake;
it is sometimes just, it is certainly common, and not always either
ridiculous or offensive. It did not say that France or England had not
been remarkable for enlightened men; their literati are more numerous
and distinguished than our own. The character, with respect to this
country, he said, was strictly true. Our countrymen, almost universally,
possess some property and some pretensions of learning--two distinctions
so remarkably in their favor, as to vindicate the expression objected
to. But go through France, Germany, and most countries of Europe, and it
will be found that, out of fifty millions of people, not more than two
or three had any pretensions to knowledge, the rest being, comparatively
with Americans, ignorant. In France, which contains twenty-five millions
of people, only one was calculated to be in any respect enlightened,
and, perhaps, under the old system, there was not a greater proportion
possessed property; whilst in America, out of four millions of people,
scarcely any part of them could be classed upon the same ground with the
rabble of Europe. That class called vulgar, canaille, rabble, so
numerous there, does not exist here as a class, though our towns have
many individuals of it. Look at the lazzaroni of Naples; there are
twenty thousand or more houseless people, wretched, and in want! He
asked whether, where men wanted every thing, and were in proportion of
29 to 1, it was possible they could be trusted with power? Wanting
wisdom and morals, how would they use it? It was, therefore, that the
iron-hand of despotism was called in by the few who had any thing, to
preserve any kind of control over the many. This evil, as it truly was,
and which he did not propose to commend, rendered true liberty hopeless.
In America, out of four millions of people, the proportion which cannot
read and write, and who, having nothing, are interested in plunder and
confusion, and disposed for both, is small. In the Southern States, he
knew there were people well-informed; he disclaimed all design of
invidious comparison; the members from the South would be more capable
of doing justice to their constituents, but in the Eastern States he was
more particularly conversant, and knew the people in them could
generally read and write, and were well-informed as to public affairs.
In such a country, liberty is likely to be permanent. They are
enlightened enough to be free. It is possible to plant it in such a
soil, and reasonable to hope that it will take root and flourish long,
as we see it does. But can liberty, such as we understand and enjoy,
exist in societies where the few only have property, and the many are
both ignorant and licentious?

Mr. CHRISTIE wished to make an amendment to the paragraph, which he
thought would answer the end equally as well as striking it out; if
agreeable to the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. PARKER,) he would move to
put the word "among" after the word "freest," which would read "the
freest and _among_ the most enlightened." He could not say we were the
most enlightened, but he did think us the most free; not that he was
afraid of offending any nation, but he thought this a more consistent
declaration.

Mr. SWANWICK said, nobody doubted but we were free and enlightened, but
he thought their declaration was no evidence of the truth of it. He
thought the last amendment very good, but it would be still better if
the gentleman would put the word "among" a little further back, so as to
read "among the freest and most enlightened." A pacific disposition
could not be proved by any thing so well as treating others with respect
as well as ourselves; we may not be exclusively free or enlightened. He
hoped it would be thus altered.

Mr. CHRISTIE thought we were the freest people in the world; he,
therefore, could not agree to the amendment last proposed.

Mr. COIT could not say with the gentleman last up, that we were the
freest, but he was very willing to agree with the amendment of a
gentleman, that we were among the freest and most enlightened; he
thought the first amendment much improved by this; he said it removed
great part of the difficulty from the minds of many gentlemen; however,
he hoped no unnecessary time would be taken up with such trifles.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, that some of the observations which had
been brought into the present debate, were of too delicate a nature to
be commented upon or even repeated; he should not, therefore, follow the
gentleman who spoke last, in his inquiry, how far this country was
exposed to be annoyed by France in the possible, though happily not
probable, event of a rupture with France?

As to the words "freest and most enlightened," which were more
immediately the subject of discussion, he did not object against them on
the ground of fact, but he considered the expression as resolving itself
into a question of decorum and delicacy, the rules of which appeared to
him to be violated, in their ascribing to themselves such a superlative
preference, however true, in a comparison with every other people. The
amendment of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. CHRISTIE) very much
softened the terms and rendered them more palatable.

Mr. KITCHELL thought we had given a very good proof that we are not the
most enlightened people in the world, by this discussion; and if we
declare to the world that we are, that declaration will be a still more
glaring proof. It appeared to him quite unnecessary; he thought it
spending a great deal of time to no purpose; it was not important enough
for that waste of time, when the session was to be so short; he
therefore wished the question to be put.

Mr. SITGREAVES agreed that a very useless and improper latitude had been
assumed in the discussion, and he thought that a few moments would not
be misspent in recalling the attention of the committee to the real
question before them. The assertion that we are the freest and most
enlightened nation in the world was found fault with, and while some
gentlemen moved to strike it out altogether, others proposed to qualify
it in different ways. Mr. S. believed that, in any modification of the
expression, the criticism was, in itself, extremely unimportant; and if,
as some gentlemen had treated it, it was a mere question of decorum, he
should feel perfectly indifferent whether it was rejected or retained.
But when he heard one member deny that we are the most free, and another
that we are enlightened; and most especially when he heard that the
expression was contended to be improper in relation to the acts and the
administration of the Government, he confessed it did appear to him to
be of some consequence not to part with the expression, lest, by doing
so, the House should give countenance to these objections. For his own
part, he believed the proposition to be true; he conceived the word
"enlightened," as applicable to political illumination; and not to our
rank in arts, sciences, or literature; and he considered the sentence as
equivalent to an assertion that we enjoy the most enlightened system of
political freedom extant. In this view of it, he thought it literally
true; and, if true, he could not discern the indecorum of declaring so
on the present occasion. He was strongly impressed with the propriety of
the idea which he had suggested yesterday, that this should be
considered as an act of intercourse purely domestic, an expression of
self-gratulation on our superior happiness, which, by the forms of
society, ought not to be noticed by any other nation. We may be deemed,
without too bold a figure, to be speaking in soliloquy; and to listen to
what we say would be no better than eavesdropping: the indecorum would
rest with those who overhear us, and not with ourselves. It could not be
denied that such a belief of the superiority of our political situation
ought to be cherished among us. If we did not believe it, we should take
shame to ourselves, because our Government is the work of our own hands.
If the belief that we are free and enlightened is valuable, the
expression of it is also valuable, because it tends to preserve us so;
it is a sentiment which we cannot dwell upon too much.

But, he contended, the propriety of this or any other expression could
not be justly estimated by considering it in the abstract--it ought to
be viewed in its application and use. We are about to lose the services
of the PRESIDENT, who is admitted on all hands to have been a useful and
patriotic officer. The House of Representatives are desirous that he
should take with him to his honorable retirement the only reward which
the nature and spirit of our political institutions admit of--the
approbation of his country. It will surely be admitted that we ought to
give to the expression of this approbation all the value of which it is
susceptible; and it is obvious, from the slightest perusal of this
paragraph in the Address, that the words in question give to it all its
force and energy, and that without them, it would be an unmeaning
compliment. The spectacle of a nation, neither free nor enlightened,
offering to its first Magistrate the tribute of approbation and
applause, would neither be "novel nor interesting," since the days of
history are stained with numberless instances of prostituted praise and
courtly adulation; but when it is the voluntary homage of a free and
enlightened people, offered with sincerity to an illustrious
fellow-citizen, it is truly a precious reward for patriotic labors.
Those who object to this expression, therefore, ought to move to strike
out the whole paragraph. To reject the words would totally defeat the
intended compliment; to qualify them would spoil it. Mr. S., therefore,
wished to retain them as they were reported.

Mr. THATCHER said, he did not think the object of the present question
of much consequence, nor did he care much about it; however, he would
wish to see the members more unanimous on the subject; he would,
therefore, propose an amendment, which he thought would have some
tendency towards it, which was to leave out the superlative, and let the
passage read, "The spectacle of a free and enlightened nation."

Mr. HENDERSON commended the ingenuity of the last motion, as he thought
it would more concentrate the ideas of the members. He would vote for
it.

Mr. CHRISTIE's motion was then put, and negatived.

Mr. THATCHER's motion was put, and passed in the affirmative.

Mr. LIVINGSTON then moved to strike out the words from the next
paragraph, "Wise, firm, and patriotic Administration," and insert in
their place, "Your wisdom, firmness, and patriotism has been." He could
not say that all the acts of the Administration had been wise and firm;
but he would say, that he believed the wisdom, firmness, and patriotism
of the PRESIDENT had been signally conducive to the success of the
present form of government. He was willing to give him every mark of
respect possible, but he believed some of his public acts of late
rendered the present motion necessary.

Mr. W. SMITH opposed the amendment, as he thought the gentleman who
proposed it conceived the words to imply more than was meant by
them--they are not meant to include every act of the Executive. He
thought that the Administration in general had been wise, firm, and
patriotic; that the wisdom and firmness of the PRESIDENT had been
conducive to the success of the present form of government. Had not the
words been put in the reported Address, he thought it would not have
been of consequence whether they were ever inserted; but the difference
is very great. Now they are inserted, they are made public, and, to
erase them now, and substitute words in any manner deficient in
sentiment to them, would be to carry censure and not respect. That the
Administration of that valuable man had been wise and conducive to the
good of this country, will not admit of a doubt; and for us to rob him
of that honor which is his due, would be insult. And any thing short of
the words in the Address he thought would not carry a proper mark of
respect.

Mr. GILES observed, that he thought the Administration had been very
deficient in wisdom. Many gentlemen, he said, were very particularly
opposed to the British Treaty and to the great emission of transferable
paper. Could it then be supposed these gentlemen could, in this
instance, so change their opinion? The gentleman last up had said, that
because the words were in the reported Address they ought not to be
struck out. He thought that the House had now as much power to act as
though the committee had made no report. He thought they ought not in
any way to be influenced by the report of the select committee, but act
as though they had to form the Address themselves. He believed that the
PRESIDENT possessed both wisdom and firmness. He was willing to
compliment the PRESIDENT as much as possible in his personal character,
but he could not think it applicable to his Administration. He thought
the amendment proposed would meet his concurrence, and he hoped it would
be agreed to.

Mr. GILBERT hoped and presumed that the motion of his colleague would
not obtain. He understood that the House addressed the PRESIDENT in
answer to his Speech, always as a public man, and not in his private
capacity. How extraordinary, then, will it appear in this House to refer
only to his private conduct! It is, in substance, complimenting him as a
private man, while the very words reprobate him in his public station.
We are now to address him as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. We may tell
him of his wisdom and his firmness, but what of all that unless we
connect it with his Administration?

Mr. ISAAC SMITH.--The sin of ingratitude is worse than the sin of
witchcraft; and we shall damn ourselves to everlasting fame if we
withhold the mighty tribute due to the excellent man whom we pretend to
address. Posterity, throughout all future generations, will cry out
shame on us. Our sons will blush that their fathers were his foes. If
excess were possible on this occasion, it would be a glorious fault, and
worth a dozen of little, sneaking, frigid virtues. I abhor a grudging
bankrupt payment, where the debtor is much more benefited than the
creditor. The gentleman from Virginia misrepresents his own
constituents--I am sure he does all the rest of the Union. On the
present occasion we ought not to consult our own little feelings and
sensibilities. We should speak with the heart and in the voice of
millions, and then we should speak warm and loud. What! "Damn with faint
praise:" and suppress or freeze the warm, energetic, grateful sensations
of almost every honest heart from Maine to Tennessee! I will not do it!
Every line shall burn! This is a left-handed way of adoring the people.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, the motion then before them was of great
importance, and every man who thought favorably of the PRESIDENT's
Administration should there make a stand. For, if the words were struck
out, it would convey an idea to the world that it was the opinion of
that House that the Administration of the PRESIDENT had neither been
wise nor patriotic. Gentlemen might very well concur in the Address in
its present form, who did not think that every single act of the
PRESIDENT had been wise and firm, since it was his Administration in
general which was referred to, and not each individual act. He hoped,
therefore, the amendment offered would be decidedly opposed, and that
the words proposed to be struck out would be retained.

Mr. GALLATIN thought the words objected to were conceived to mean more
than they really did mean by gentlemen who supported the present motion;
nor could he conceive how the words "firmness and patriotism," proposed
to be inserted, could apply to any thing but the public character of the
PRESIDENT. On the first view of the Address, Mr. G. said, he thought
with the gentlemen from New York and Virginia, and it was not without
considerable hesitation that he brought himself to agree to this part of
the Address. He found, however, on further examination, that they did
not go so far as he at first thought they did. Had they approved of
every measure of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, he should have
voted against them. But, in the first place, he would observe, that his
Administration did not include Legislative acts; so that whatever evils
had arisen from the funding or banking systems were not to be charged to
the PRESIDENT. They did not mean to pay compliments to themselves but to
the PRESIDENT: therefore, the words in question related only to the
Administration of the PRESIDENT alone, and not to those officers of
State which had been supposed by some gentlemen. The first question was,
then, whether that Administration had been marked with wisdom, firmness,
and patriotism? And, he would briefly say, so far as related to the
internal situation of the country, it had borne these marks. He did not
recollect any instance where he could say here was any want of wisdom,
or there of firmness or patriotism. If they proceeded to foreign
affairs, a great number of members were found (he for one) who wished
that certain acts had not taken place; and, if he thought, in giving
approbation to this Address, he was approving of these measures, he
would certainly vote against it. But, as the gentlemen from South
Carolina and New Jersey (Mr. SMITH and the SPEAKER) had observed, as the
approbation went to the Administration in toto, it had respect to no
particular act. Nor did he believe the literal sense of the words would
apply to the business of the late treaty. [He read the words.] The most
clear meaning of these words related to the present Government and
constitution; and the word "success" could apply to those parts of the
Administration only which had had time to be matured. He did not believe
that at the present period it could be said that the Treaty with Great
Britain had been successful, and, therefore, could not be included
within the meaning of the expression. Not meaning to pledge an
approbation of that act, and not conceiving that the sentence could have
such a meaning, he would vote against the proposed amendment, and for
the original.

The question was put on the amendment and negatived. The committee then
rose, reported the Address with the amendments, when the House took them
up, and having gone through them--

On the question being about to be put on the answer as amended, Mr.
BLOUNT wished the yeas and nays might be taken, that posterity might see
that he did not consent to the Address.

The main question being put, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas
67, nays 12, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,
      David Bard, Theophilus Bradbury, Nathan Bryan, Gabriel
      Christie, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Joshua Coit,
      William Cooper, William Craik, James Davenport, Henry
      Dearborn, George Dent, George Ege, Abiel Foster, Dwight
      Foster, Jesse Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert
      Gallatin, Ezekiel Gilbert, James Gillespie, Nicholas
      Gilman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Andrew Gregg, Roger
      Griswold, William B. Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter
      B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, Jonathan N. Havens, John
      Heath, Thomas Henderson, William Hindman, George Jackson,
      Aaron Kitchell, Samuel Lyman, James Madison, Francis
      Malbone, Andrew Moore, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, John
      Nicholas, John Page, Josiah Parker, John Patton, John Read,
      John Richards, Samuel Sewall, John S. Sherburne, Samuel
      Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Israel Smith, Isaac Smith,
      William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., William Strudwick, John
      Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson,
      John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
      Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

      NAYS.--Thomas Blount, Isaac Coles, William B. Giles,
      Christopher Greenup, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, Edward
      Livingston, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay,
      Nathaniel Macon, and Abraham Venable.

_Resolved_, That the SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said
Address; and that Mr. AMES, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. SITGREAVES, be a
committee to wait on the PRESIDENT to know when and where it will be
convenient for him to receive the same.


FRIDAY, December 16.

Mr. AMES, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT to know
when and where he would receive the answer of this House to his Address,
reported that he had appointed to receive it at his house this day at
two o'clock.

_Address to the President._

The SPEAKER informed the House that the hour was nearly at hand, which
the PRESIDENT had appointed for receiving the Address of the House, in
answer to his Speech. The members, in a body, accordingly waited upon
the PRESIDENT, at his house; and the SPEAKER pronounced the following
Address:

      "SIR: The House of Representatives have attended to your
      communication respecting the state of our country, with all
      the sensibility that the contemplation of the subject and a
      sense of duty can inspire.

      "We are gratified by the information, that measures
      calculated to ensure a continuance of the friendship of the
      Indians, and to maintain the tranquillity of the Western
      frontier, have been adopted; and we indulge the hope that
      these, by impressing the Indian tribes with more correct
      conceptions of the justice, as well as power of the United
      States, will be attended with success.

      "While we notice, with satisfaction, the steps that you
      have taken, in pursuance of the late treaties with several
      foreign nations, the liberation of our citizens, who were
      prisoners at Algiers, is a subject of peculiar
      felicitation. We shall cheerfully co-operate in any further
      measures that shall appear, on consideration, to be
      requisite.

      "We have ever concurred with you in the most sincere and
      uniform disposition to preserve our neutral relations
      inviolate; and it is, of course, with anxiety and deep
      regret we hear that any interruption of our harmony with
      the French Republic has occurred; for we feel with you, and
      with our constituents, the cordial and unabated wish to
      maintain a perfectly friendly understanding with that
      nation. Your endeavors to fulfil that wish, and by all
      honorable means to preserve peace and to restore that
      harmony and affection, which have heretofore so happily
      subsisted between the French Republic and the United
      States, cannot fail, therefore, to interest our attention.
      And while we participate in the full reliance you have
      expressed on the patriotism, self-respect, and fortitude of
      our countrymen, we cherish the pleasing hope that a mutual
      spirit of justice and moderation will ensure the success of
      your perseverance.

      "The various subjects of your communication will,
      respectively, meet with the attention that is due to their
      importance.

      "When we advert to the internal situation of the United
      States, we deem it equally natural and becoming to compare
      the present period with that immediately antecedent to the
      operation of the Government, and to contrast it with the
      calamities in which the state of war still involves several
      of the European nations, as the reflections deduced from
      both tend to justify as well as to excite a warmer
      admiration of our free constitution, and to exalt our minds
      to a more fervent and grateful sense of piety towards
      Almighty God for the beneficence of His providence, by
      which its Administration has been hitherto so remarkably
      distinguished.

      "And while we entertain a grateful conviction that your
      wise, firm, and patriotic Administration has been signally
      conducive to the success of the present form of government,
      we cannot forbear to express the deep sensations of regret
      with which we contemplate your intended retirement from
      office.

      "As no other suitable occasion may occur, we cannot suffer
      the present to pass without attempting to disclose some of
      the emotions which it cannot fail to awaken.

      "The gratitude and admiration of your countrymen are still
      drawn to the recollection of those resplendent virtues and
      talents which were so eminently instrumental to the
      achievement of the Revolution, and of which that glorious
      event will ever be the memorial. Your obedience to the
      voice of duty and your country, when you quitted
      reluctantly, a second time, the retreat you had chosen, and
      first accepted the Presidency, afforded a new proof of the
      devotedness of your zeal in its service, and an earnest of
      the patriotism and success which have characterized your
      Administration. As the grateful confidence of the citizens
      in the virtues of their Chief Magistrate has essentially
      contributed to that success, we persuade ourselves that the
      millions whom we represent, participate with us in the
      anxious solicitude of the present occasion.

      "Yet we cannot be unmindful that your moderation and
      magnanimity, twice displayed by retiring from your exalted
      stations, afford examples no less rare and instructive to
      mankind, than valuable to a Republic.

      "Although we are sensible that this event, of itself,
      completes the lustre of a character already conspicuously
      unrivalled by the coincidence of virtue, talents, success,
      and public estimation; yet we conceive we owe it to you,
      sir, and still more emphatically to ourselves and to our
      nation, (of the language of whose hearts we presume to
      think ourselves at this moment the faithful interpreters,)
      to express the sentiments with which it is contemplated.

      "The spectacle of a free and enlightened nation offering,
      by its Representatives, the tribute of unfeigned
      approbation to its first citizen, however novel and
      interesting it may be, derives all its lustre (a lustre
      which accident or enthusiasm could not bestow, and which
      adulation would tarnish) from the transcendent merit of
      which it is the voluntary testimony.

      "May you long enjoy that liberty which is so dear to you,
      and to which your name will ever be so dear; may your own
      virtues and a nation's prayers obtain the happiest sunshine
      for the decline of your days and the choicest of future
      blessings. For our country's sake, for the sake of
      Republican liberty, it is our earnest wish that your
      example may be the guide of your successors; and thus,
      after being the ornament and safeguard of the present age,
      become the patrimony of our descendants."

To which the PRESIDENT made the following Reply:

      "GENTLEMEN: To a citizen whose views were unambitious, who
      preferred the shade and tranquillity of private life, to
      the splendor and solicitude of elevated stations, and whom
      the voice of duty and his country could alone have drawn
      from his chosen retreat, no reward for his public services
      can be so grateful as public approbation, accompanied by a
      consciousness that to render those services useful to that
      country has been his single aim: and when this approbation
      is expressed by the Representatives of a free and enlighted
      nation, the reward will admit of no addition. Receive,
      gentlemen, my sincere and affectionate thanks for this
      signal testimony that my services have been acceptable and
      useful to my country. The strong confidence of my
      fellow-citizens, while it animated all my actions, ensured
      their zealous co-operation, which rendered those services
      successful. The virtue and wisdom of my successors, joined
      with the patriotism and intelligence of the citizens who
      compose the other branches of Government, I firmly trust,
      will lead them to the adoption of measures which, by the
      beneficence of Providence, will give stability to our
      system of Government, add to its success, and secure to
      ourselves and to posterity that liberty which is to all of
      us so dear.

      "While I acknowledge, with pleasure, the sincere and
      uniform disposition of the House of Representatives to
      preserve our neutral relations inviolate, and, with them,
      deeply regret any degree of interruption of our good
      understanding with the French Republic, I beg you,
      gentlemen, to rest assured that my endeavors will be
      earnest and unceasing, by all honorable means, to preserve
      peace, and to restore that harmony and affection which have
      heretofore so happily subsisted between our two nations;
      and with you, I cherish the pleasing hope that a mutual
      spirit of justice and moderation will crown those endeavors
      with success.

      "I shall cheerfully concur in the beneficial measures which
      your deliberations shall mature on the various subjects
      demanding your attention. And while directing your labors
      to advance the real interests of our country, you receive
      its blessings; with perfect sincerity my individual wishes
      will be offered for your present and future felicity.

                          "G. WASHINGTON."

The members then returned to the House, and having resumed their places,
the SPEAKER presented a copy of the PRESIDENT's Answer to the Clerk;
which he read.


MONDAY, December 19.

JOHN HATHORN, from New York, and JOHN MILLEDGE, from Georgia, appeared
and took their seats.

A new member, to wit, ELISHA R. POTTER, from Rhode Island, in the place
of BENJAMIN BOURNE, resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat in the House.


MONDAY, December 26.

_National University._

Mr. HARPER moved the order of the day, for the House to go into a
committee on the establishment of a National University. The House
accordingly formed itself into a committee--Mr. COIT in the chair.

When the report was read, Mr. MACON said there was the word
"appropriation" in the report. He did not recollect any having been made
for that purpose. He wished to know what was meant?

Mr. CRAIK said, authority was given for the PRESIDENT to appropriate
about twenty acres of land for the erection of this building; this he
supposed to be what was meant.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that some time or other the institution of a Seminary
in this District may be of use, but at present, and in the manner
contemplated in this report, it would not do. If carried into effect
thus, it will sometime need an appropriation. We are now, said Mr. N.,
going into the subject, but we know not to what lengths it may carry us;
we do not know where it will end. He did not think the time had arrived
to incorporate a company for building a National University. It would be
taking money from those districts of country which can do for
themselves, and would receive no benefit from this institution. It would
be inconvenient and inconsistent for people living at a considerable
distance to send their children to this University; besides, he thought,
the further children are from home, by being less under the eye of their
parents, the more their morals would be injured. If it be a National
University, it must be for the use of the nation. It will then be
necessary to open funds for the purpose of its support. It is
recommended by the PRESIDENT, it is true; but this is no argument why we
should precipitate the business: it is the last time he will have an
opportunity to address this House, and it being an object he should like
to see encouraged when it was practicable, he took that opportunity to
express it. We are not now in a situation to forward its establishment.
It may be done at some time, but Mr. N. thought it would be many years
first. That district of country would be many years before it could
encourage the hope of such a plan prospering. He thought gentlemen from
other parts of the Union would not say they wanted it for their youth.
He thought if the House once entered into the subject, the
responsibility would fall on it to keep up the institution.

Mr. HARPER said, it did not appear to him that the gentleman last up had
attended sufficiently to this report, for he seemed to be much mistaken
as to its principle. There was nothing in it that contemplated pledging
the United States to find funds for its support; nor was it the object
of the report to establish a National University. He agreed with the
gentleman, that we were not arrived at a period for such an institution.
But gentlemen would see that the object of the commissioners was not to
establish a National University or obtain money from the United States,
but their direct object was, to be incorporated, so as to be enabled to
receive such legacies and donations as may be presented to the
institution, and hold it in trust for that purpose. The PRESIDENT had
already given nineteen acres of land, and signified his intention to
give fifty shares in the Potomac canal whenever there was proper
authority to receive endowments. It appears that there is no authority
at present. The memorial goes no further than to authorize them to
receive such benefactions as may be made, and hold them in trust. How
far, then, this went towards involving this House in its support, he
should leave the good sense of gentlemen to judge. Mr. H. thought the
amount of this memorial could not have any evil tendency, but it may
have a good one; for which reason he hoped it would be agreed to.

Mr. BALDWIN did not know any thing, according to his present views,
which could be injurious in the report. At present it seemed favorable
to him. He had two principal ideas in his mind, which made it appear so;
if neither of which was cleared up otherwise, he should vote for it. The
first thing he should ask was, Is such a thing desirable? And then, Is
there a Seminary so near the spot contemplated, as to make it hostile in
this House to encourage this University? He believed there was none that
this will injure, but that an establishment like this would be very
agreeable in that District. If it was desirable, who could undertake it,
who encourage it, like this House? They could not do it themselves. If,
then, the step is a proper one, it can never be too soon to commence it,
although it may be many years before it may be wanted. The objection may
be, that it would be wrong to incorporate a Literary Society; but we
have frequent instances of incorporation, and nothing can prove it
improper, since no pecuniary aid is required, no grant of money is
asked. If it was, I should, like the gentleman before me, (Mr.
NICHOLAS,) disapprove of it, but not now seeing reason to object, I
shall vote for the report.

Mr. CRAIK.--After the caution the committee had observed in forming
their report, to prevent objections, I am sorry they should be charged
with things they do not in the least merit. If the report contemplated
the raising a fund for the support of this institution from the United
States, there might have been some ground for gentlemen's objections;
but, as there is not the most distant view of such a thing, I am
surprised to hear it objected to. I did not expect it from that
gentleman, (Mr. NICHOLAS.) I did not expect to hear him say, that
institutions of this kind were not wanted there; it might have come
better from gentlemen residing in more distant parts of the United
States.

If this subject was now before the House, sir, I should not be against
proving, at this time, that it is the duty of the United States to
establish a University, and that the sooner it was done the better. But,
as this is not the case, as we are only asked to permit its
encouragement, by allowing these people to receive benefactions, how can
we refuse? Shall we shut the door against individual benevolence? There
are appropriations already made to this institution. There is a fund now
of fifty shares in the canal, which is now valuable and increasing in
value daily. I think the situation for this purpose very good; and the
probable increase of the city of Washington will induce many persons to
benevolence for this purpose. I know of no situation more central, and
believe there is no place of the kind in its neighborhood; and from an
established knowledge it would be a very useful and desirable
institution, shall vote for it.

Mr. W. LYMAN.--As far as I can understand, the land which is now to be
appropriated for this University is the property of the United States.
Does not this look as though the United States are to patronize and
support the establishment? If we take this step, I shall very much
wonder if our next is not to be called upon to produce money. I do not
expect much from the liberality of individuals; and can it be expected
that people from the remote parts of the United States will send their
children to this Seminary? Surely not; and consequently their money will
be lost. It will be a natural source of discontent to them to pay their
money merely for others to obtain the advantage. It may be very good for
people thereabout, but remote parts cannot derive the least advantage
from the institution. We are going quite too fast into this business,
without attending to probable consequences.

I think it would have been more proper, if these people had only wanted
this power, for them to have applied to the State Legislature of
Maryland; it would be more to their interest and duty to encourage a
Seminary if one is wanted in that place. They have sufficient power
vested in them to encourage all such laudable undertakings. For us to
encourage this would be to do injury, instead of having a number of
schools planted in various parts, they are now all to centre in one; and
the people are to neglect all to support this one; as others would
become very weak.

I flatter myself to have as liberal sentiments on such institutions as
other gentlemen, but I do sincerely think small academies are as useful
as this institution for a University. The large institutions are
generally out of the reach of people in general, and of the middling
class in particular. These small academies have produced many eminent
literary characters in the country. If it should be necessary at any
time to form a Seminary for the use of that District, Congress would not
refuse its encouragement; but to draw money for a National University I
hope they never will agree. But gentlemen say this is not asked; true it
is not at this time, but there is that in the principle that will most
certainly lead to it.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, if it should ever be the policy of the
United States to establish a National University, he was of opinion this
was an improper time for making the decision. He did not believe the
committee who made the report meant to do more than had been stated; but
the effect, he said, would be what he predicted; this measure would be
looked upon as an entering wedge, and they should hereafter be told they
must go through with it. If gentlemen were prepared to sanction an
institution of this kind they would of course do it; he was not prepared
to vote for the measure, but should give it his negative.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he had not been convinced by the observations of
gentlemen who had spoken in favor of this report that all the mischiefs
would not follow this measure which he before predicted. He inquired
into the purpose of establishing a National University. The PRESIDENT
had said (and the commissioners after him) it was to establish a
uniformity of principles and manners throughout the Union. This, he
believed, could not be effected by any institution. If, said he, you
incorporate men to build a University, are you not pledging yourselves
to make up any deficiency? and, as the building must be commensurate
with the object, they would have an enormous empty house continually
calling upon them for contributions to its support. Whatever moderation
had been observed in framing this report, Mr. N. said it was like many
others which came before them: it was so covered as not to show half the
mischiefs which would attend it. If a plan of education was wanted for
that District, let members from that part of the country say so, and he
would be ready to afford them every necessary assistance; but he would
not think of going into the scheme of a National University.

The district of country from whence it came might stand in great need of
seminaries of learning, as had been hinted by the gentleman from
Maryland, (Mr. CRAIK,) but their ignorance must continue until they were
sensible of their want of instruction. He believed there was no Federal
quality in knowledge, and no Federal aid was necessary to the spreading
of it. Every district of country was competent to provide for the
education of its own citizens, and he should not give his countenance to
the national plan proposed, because the expense would be enormous, and
because he did not think it would be attended with any good effect, but
with much evil.

If a University is wanted for the use of that District, or any other
part, Mr. N. said he would give it all the encouragement possible, but
he could not agree to go to such great lengths--lengths which were not
yet explored.

Mr. R. SPRIGG considered the report before them as of a very harmless
nature. The PRESIDENT, he said, had appropriated land upon which to
erect the University in question. They were not called upon to sanction
that appropriation. His power to give it was full and ample. The thing
was done, and he had promised a future donation. The apprehensions of
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) seemed to arise from his
conceiving they were about to sanction a National University, such as
had been recommended by the PRESIDENT. If this were the case, although
the Representative of that District, he should not give his vote in
support of the measure. On the contrary, he said, they were called upon
merely to authorize proper persons to receive donations for a
University. What sort of institution this should be, would be for the
future consideration of Congress. Mr. S. said he should always be ready
to give his support to every measure which had a tendency to spread
knowledge throughout the United States, as he believed the progress of
knowledge and liberty would accompany each other. The gentleman from
Virginia seemed to think this institution would only benefit a small
circle. He did not think the State of Maryland would be much benefited
by it, as they had already two good universities; but he thought it
doing no more than justice to the owners of property in the Federal City
that this institution should be encouraged. What was asked of them would
not commit them at all for any thing further, and it would be a mean of
turning the attention of the people to the support of an institution of
this kind. For these reasons, he hoped the House would agree to the
report.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said he had thought, like the gentleman last up, that
there was nothing in it but what was perfectly harmless, until,
recurring to the law for establishing the permanent seat of Government,
that something more might be intended than the eye could at first
discover. Mr. L. said, he turned the thing a variety of ways in his
mind, and could not account for some of its obscurities. If nothing was
intended but a mere incorporation, why not apply to the State that could
incorporate such a body? Something further seemed to be intended: public
patronage was wanted to support this institution. They were called upon,
at a moment's notice, to give their encouragement to this National
Institution. It is true, they were called upon from very respectable
authority. They were not called upon to appropriate the public funds to
this purpose; but how far the commissioners are justifiable in laying
out public lands for that purpose, he knew not. He had not the law
itself at hand, but he was doubtful about the just disposal of it, if in
this manner. This land was for public use. The use of this land was to
erect buildings on for the benefit of Congress; and if these
commissioners had power to appropriate it for building a National
University on, they had the same power to give it or make use of it for
any other purpose. Such institutions are not public, but private
concerns.

This, said Mr. L., I view as the effects of the resolution, were it to
be adopted; but I would not be thought as in the least reflecting on the
motives of the gentleman who brought it forward. I believe it will
operate (as a gentleman has justly said) as an "entering-wedge;" and at
some future time we shall be told, we must go on--now we have encouraged
its institution, we must support it. We shall hear more about it at a
future day. Gentlemen tell you, sir, that nothing is intended, but
merely to permit its institution. Why cannot they obtain this power
which is asked of us of the State where it is wanted? The laws there
will permit it, and, most likely, it could be obtained. If this report
is agreed to, the time will arrive when this institution will pretend to
a just claim on this House for its support; and the reasons they will
then urge will have a force which will not be easily repelled.

Mr. MADISON said he was very far from considering, with some gentlemen,
that this is a question of right or policy. These ideas are not
comprehended in the present question. It is not whether Congress ought
to interpose in behalf of this institution or not; it is whether
Congress will encourage an establishment which is to be supported
entirely independent of them. He did not consider it would ask a single
farthing from us, nor that it would pledge Congress to endow the
establishment with any support. The State of Virginia thought proper,
during the war, to present the PRESIDENT with fifty shares in the
Potomac canal, in consideration of his services, which he refused
accepting for his own use. He has now offered to give it to this
Seminary.[4] Some other individuals have likewise destined part of their
land for its support, and other benefactions may be expected. The amount
of this motion before the committee is whether we will grant power and
security to persons to receive such donations in trust for the
institution? He conceived it only in this simple point of view, and he
thought if it was worthy of patronage, it ought to be from the United
States.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. LIVINGSTON) seems to say it is not
necessary for Congress to interpose, as the laws of Maryland allow that
Legislature power to do it, and they are the most proper. Congress has
the sole jurisdiction over that District: it is not with the power of
that Legislature. Their power in that District could only operate by
virtue of a grant from the United States; although it is necessary,
until that District becomes the permanent seat of Government, the laws
of Maryland should be in force there. This being the situation, the
commissioners applied to Congress to give them the power to receive
benefactions.

Another thing which gentlemen had objected to, is its being called a
National University. The report does not call it so; it calls it "A
University in the District of Columbia;" which, he thought, was
materially different. Congress may form regulations for institutions
which may be very good, and yet, not be viewed as national institutions.
It was in this qualified light (for he wished not to consider it a
burden on the nation) he meant to vote for the report.

Mr. SPRIGGS said it had been inquired why the Legislature of Maryland
could not have granted the commissioners what they now pray for? He
answered that they could make no law for that District which should
extend beyond the time at which the seat of Government was to be removed
there. He mentioned some instances that had taken place while he was a
member of that Legislature. This, he said, accounted for the application
of the commissioners to Congress.

On motion, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.


TUESDAY, December 27.

DEMPSEY BURGES, from North Carolina, appeared, and took his seat.

_National University._

The order of the day was called for on the report of the committee to
whom was referred the memorial of the commissioners of the Federal City,
and that part of the PRESIDENT's Speech, which referred to the
establishment of a National University. The House accordingly resolved
itself into a Committee of the Whole on that subject, when the
resolution, reported by the select committee, having been read, no
gentleman rising on the subject, the Chairman inquired if the committee
were ready for the question, and on being answered in the affirmative,
the question was put and negatived by a great majority.

The committee rose, and the Chairman reported their disagreement with
the select committee.

The House then took up the subject.

Mr. MURRAY rose, expressing his great surprise at the unexpected
decision on the question in the committee. He was very much surprised to
see the committee so changed, no opposition, and yet the report so
quickly negatived; surely gentlemen must have mistaken the question. It
is matter of regret such an important subject should have so little
consideration. The language of the report is perfectly moderate and
just. The gentleman from Virginia, yesterday, gave us to understand that
this institution was to draw its support from the National Treasury; but
on examining the report I can find no such idea held out or intended;
and also he told us this was a National University. The gentleman's
observations are grounded in mistake, or it was effected by an
imagination of evils, of which there could not be the most distant
apprehension. If we refer to the memorial of the commissioners we shall
see they ask no money from Congress; they only ask you to erect a number
of gentlemen into a corporate capacity to enable them to receive
donations from those who are well disposed towards instituting a useful
Seminary in that District; this is no more than they have a right to
expect from Congress, and is the duty of Congress to grant. Yet the
determination of the Committee of the whole House has been carried
against this very desirable and reasonable request. I would again repeat
that the language of the memorial is only to enable them to support a
seminary of learning in that place, and not a single shilling is asked
from the nation. They only want a medium to act upon--an act of
incorporation.

The PRESIDENT has generously signified his intention to make a valuable
benefaction, not less than £5000 sterling, and the wise and good in all
parts of the United States would probably follow his example,
particularly in that neighborhood, if Congress would put them in a way
to receive it; a building would then be begun and some advances made
towards the execution of the institution, in proportion to the fund.
Instead of allowing this to be the case, every possible view has been
given unfavorable to the plan, and every possible supposition formed,
though without grounds, which could tend to blast it. The ideas of
gentlemen have been inferred that a large empty house would arise;--that
it would draw from the United States funds for its support. It may be
possible, but it is no way probable. Is it not more probable that these
gentlemen, knowing they cannot expect national support, will keep
themselves within the bounds of their funds, if they mean to carry on
the institution? Certainly this seems most consistent with the wisdom
and prudence of men in that capacity. Nothing is asked of the public in
the report of the select committee:--nothing they have a right to ask. I
therefore hope, as the request is perfectly reasonable, gentlemen will
not be too hasty to oppose such a measure without due consideration.

Mr. CRAIK.--I must confess I feel as much surprised as my colleague on
the decision which has just been given in the Committee of the Whole.
Some gentlemen who opposed the report yesterday conceived there was some
secret poison lurking within it--some dangerous principle not to be
discovered on its face, which would some time produce baneful
influences--this has been insinuated though not directly said. If so it
must come there by accident, or of itself, which those gentlemen must
allow if they will give themselves the trouble to examine the true
principle of it, and give it a just decision. When we examine the
materials of which this report has been formed, viz: the PRESIDENT's
communication on this subject in his Speech, and the memorial of the
commissioners;--we should be led by those gentlemen to believe, that
this, which is the groundwork of the report, is connected to convey
something which may extend further than it seems to carry its object;
this perhaps is the secret poison hinted at. Were I in the situation of
the PRESIDENT, I am free to confess, had I studied my own feelings and
the great use of the institution, I should have recommended it. It has
been justly said, that the PRESIDENT, from the impulsive importance of
it, has taken this opportunity--this last opportunity to recommend it.
He has recommended it with earnestness; which gives an additional proof
of his sincere regard for the welfare of his country. I hope this will
not be conceived in favor of the idea suggested. The commissioners
seemed to have anticipated the objections which have been made to a
National University, and have purposely avoided inserting it in their
memorial. They have cherished similar ideas which I have, of the
eligibility of such an institution, but foreseeing that plan would not
be approved, they have relinquished that, and only requested
incorporation to enable them to act in trust for the institution. They
do not call upon this House to put their hand into the Public Treasury;
they seem to have possessed somewhat of the prophetic, to see the
necessity of forming their memorial so little objectionable; and yet
there is supposed to be danger in this simple request.

Gentlemen have supposed a responsibility, a peculiar obligation to
support it, would be attached to the United States, were they to give
this privilege. As well might it be said that Congress, by allowing a
bridge to be built, or a road to be cut, would incur the expense, or if
it could not otherwise be done for want of money in the applicants,
would be engaged to do it for them at the national expense. If there are
objections of force in one instance they will apply to the other. If
this is denied it proves that District to be wretched outcasts, being
denied a request the most reasonable, natural, and just that can be
contemplated. Many of the objections urged, indeed most of them, against
the admission of this report, do not go so much to the exclusion of the
measure, as to the danger of Legislative interference. Gentlemen say, if
we move in it--if we put our hands at all to it, we pledge ourselves to
effect it. If this is the situation with the people of Columbia, the
year 1800 will be a woful year to them; this is an unhappy presage of
the jurisdiction to be exercised on that country. If it is inexpedient
for that District to have a Seminary of Learning, let gentlemen who
could state it with truth, come forward and say so. If the objections of
gentlemen are not grounded on the danger of this House pledging itself
to support the institution nor on the inexpediency of such a thing in
that District, I am at a loss, for my soul, to conceive on what ground
their objections are formed. I was surprised yesterday to hear the
opposition come from the quarter it did; and am equally surprised to
find such an opposition now. In my view there is a very great want of
Seminaries of Learning in that District.

If we take a view on the south side of the Potomac, for a considerable
extent of country, there is no institution to answer any desirable
purpose. There is the greatest probability of a rapid increase in the
population. Is it not reasonable, then, that an institution of this kind
should be established in that place? And if reasonable at all, are we to
wait till the period arrives when the country is thickly inhabited
before we commence a building and project the plan? I have long thought
that in this young country such a thing was necessary. It should be now
begun, to grow up with its growth and strengthen with its strength. We
should now lay the corner-stone--the foundation to build upon. Though
such a Seminary cannot be established now, it may fifty years hence; and
it can never be too soon to commence a good institution. We are not
called upon to travel into the fields of speculation for the purpose of
finding funds to support this plan; there are funds which present
themselves to view. We only want a grant to secure the benefactions in
prospect. The PRESIDENT has employed a handsome benefaction for this
purpose; and I much wonder that gentlemen from that part of the Union
should oppose measures that would only encourage its reception. When I
take a view of the extent of country which lies much in want of a
Seminary, I feel surprised that such measures towards its growth should
be denied.

If there are any gentlemen here who oppose the advancement and growth of
that District which they have taken under their wing, they should come
forward and declare it; we then should have ground to account for their
conduct. If we are determined to deny these people common justice, we
dispirit them. There is no circumstance which can occur that will tend
so much to discourage the growth of that State; if we forbear to do them
this justice, we exclude them looking up for those common rights which
could be enjoyed in any other Territory of the United States. I hope
this House will never deny to that people, rising into existence, this
small privilege. Is it a strange thing, I would ask gentlemen, for a
State to grant charters? I answer, no. And for this State to be denied
this privilege only to secure a fund for such an excellent institution,
I believe is quite a novel idea. I hope if there are any doubts on this
subject, they will lie over for future consideration; and I hope we
shall be careful not to damp the attempts of that people by a conduct
which could not be refused by any State in the Union; and that Congress
should refuse it without assigning a sufficient reason is unprecedented.
I hope it will lie over for future consideration, and not be refused so
quickly.

It was moved that the subject should lie over until the second Monday in
January.

The question for postponement was put and carried--ayes 37, noes 36.


WEDNESDAY, December 28.

_Relief to Savannah._

Mr. W. SMITH wished the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole on the resolution, which he had the other day laid upon the table,
proposing to afford some relief to the sufferers by the late fire at
Savannah. For his part, he said, he could see no reasonable objection
which could be made to so benevolent a proposition. A gentleman in the
House had got a plan of the ruins of the city; it was, indeed, a most
distressful scene. There had never occurred so calamitous an event of
the kind in the United States, or which had so strong a claim upon the
General Government for relief. He said they had granted assistance to
the sufferers by fire at St. Domingo; and surely if it were justifiable
to grant relief to foreigners in distress, it was at least equally so
when the objects were our own citizens. If gentlemen had objections to
the measure, he wished they would state them. The sum with which he
should think of filling up the blank would not be such as to materially
affect our finances.

Mr. MILLEDGE said, if the unfortunate had any claim upon the Government
for relief, none could have greater than the citizens of Savannah. Few
houses, he said, were remaining of that city, and those few were the
least valuable. Not a public building, not a place of public worship, or
of public justice--all was a wide waste of ruin and desolation, such as
scarcely could be conceived, and as it were impossible to describe. He
hoped some relief would be afforded to distress so unexampled.

Mr. COOPER said, it was a very unpleasant thing to come forward to
oppose a measure of this sort; but, when they looked into different
parts of the Union, and saw the losses which had been sustained at New
York, Charleston, &c., it would appear only reasonable that, if relief
was afforded in one case, it ought to be extended to another; and, if
this resolution were agreed to, he should certainly move to have some
relief afforded to New York. He hoped, however, the business would not
be proceeded with. If the principle were a good one, it would bear going
through with; but it would be seen this would, on the contrary, prove a
dangerous one. What they did to-day, he said, should bear repeating
to-morrow. If they were to make good losses by fire, there would be no
occasion for insurance companies, nor any inducement to build with brick
in preference to wood. He felt as much as others for the distresses of
the people of Savannah, but was of opinion it was not a proper business
for the interference of that House.

Mr. W. SMITH agreed with the gentleman last up that this would be
considered as a precedent; he agreed that they ought not to do that
to-day which ought not to be done to-morrow. It might be brought forward
as a principle upon which we should be bound to relieve New York or
Charleston; but the question is, whether this is not a distinct case?
This is a case awfully distinguishable from all others; and if a case
like the present will not be often found, this House are certainly not
bound to grant relief in others, though in this. He trusted such a case
would not be again found to solicit relief. Charleston, he said, had
experienced a great calamity by fire, but had not asked relief of that
House; and it was probable if it had it would not have been granted,
because its distresses are not so great. In a distressing situation like
that now before us aid can be afforded by the many towards alleviating
the distresses of the few. Hence arises the advantages from public
contributions; and would that House, he asked, refuse their assistance?
It would not be felt by the public purse. It has been said, to adopt
this resolution would have a dangerous tendency, inasmuch as it would
encourage a neglect of insurance. But the evil has come; the unfortunate
circumstance has occurred; four-fifths of that unfortunate city has been
destroyed, and their distress is great. Such a circumstance may not
again happen for a century. The amazing value of £500,000 sterling
damages is done; and shall we refuse to give a trifle to assist, with
others, towards removing the present distressed situation of some of the
unfortunate inhabitants? I trust not. It is not asked of the House to
indemnify the loss of these sufferers. No, sir; it is only asked that
the General Government should give the trifling sum of fifteen or twenty
thousand dollars to afford these people some relief.

The question was then put for the House to resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the subject, and lost--yeas 38, nays 39.

It was then moved that the committee be discharged from the further
consideration of the subject.

Mr. W. LYMAN hoped the business would not be disposed of without going
into a Committee of the Whole. He thought more respect was due to the
feelings of the sufferers than to dispose of the subject without
discussion. He hoped the committee would not, therefore, be discharged.

Mr. HARTLEY trusted the committee would not be discharged. He believed
the destruction of Lisbon by an earthquake did not occasion greater
mischiefs than the late fire had done to Savannah. The Legislature of
Pennsylvania, which had no greater power than the General Government to
afford relief to these sufferers, had given $15,000. Indeed, he thought
it more the province of the General Government than of State Governments
to afford relief in such cases.

Shall we, said he, treat the citizens of Savannah with more disrespect
than the people of St. Domingo? This House then gave $10,000 or more for
the relief of those people, and shall we not now have liberty to discuss
the subject, whether to give or not to our own citizens? Although, he
said, he would not wish to draw a precedent from English transactions,
yet he would observe that their generous benevolence to the unfortunate
sufferers by the earthquake at Lisbon, though only commercially
acquainted was worth imitation, to whom they gave £100,000. Mr. H. was
sorry gentlemen should endeavor to prevent this by bringing in the
calamities in New York and Charleston. Those were only personal losses;
this was a general conflagration, a catastrophe unprecedented; and he
hoped, for the sake of humanity and national honor, this House would
never withhold relief.

Mr. SPRIGG hoped the committee would not be discharged, but that they
would go into the business at an early day. He said, he had not made up
his mind how far they had power to afford relief in a case like the
present. There was an instance in the relief afforded to the daughters
of the Count de Grasse, as well as that given to the sufferers at St.
Domingo. He wished for further time to make inquiry on the subject. If
there were not insuperable objections to the measure, he hoped relief
would be afforded.

Mr. HARPER acknowledged that it was sound policy in Government to keep a
strict eye over its Treasury; but this watchfulness ought not to go to
the rejection of all claims, however just and proper. He thought the
tenaciousness of approaching the Treasury was carried too far in the
present instance. He would ask, what was the use of society if it were
not to lessen the evils of such calamities as the present, by spreading
them over the whole community, instead of suffering them to fall upon
the heads of a few individuals? He thought it the duty of Government to
alleviate such peculiar distress as the present. It was said this would
prove a dangerous precedent, and prevent necessary provisions against
fire. If they were about to make good the whole of the £500,000
destroyed, there might be some ground for the alarm; but when fifteen or
twenty thousand dollars only were contemplated to be given, no great
danger could surely be apprehended. The fires at New York, Baltimore,
and Charleston, had been mentioned; but what were the means of Savannah
when compared with New York? Not as one to twenty. New York was rich
enough to bear her loss, but this could not be said of Savannah, all the
inhabitants of which were reduced to poverty and distress. They could
not, therefore, get relief from their fellow-citizens; and to whom could
they look for protection and relief with so much propriety as to the
General Government? When compared to Charleston, the loss of Savannah
was of ten times the magnitude as that experienced by it. The loss of
Charleston was alleviated by a subscription of $30,000 from its own
citizens, besides the handsome contributions which were made in other
parts of the Union; but there was no property left in Georgia to afford
relief to the sufferers. Suppose, said Mr. H., we were to give thirty
thousand dollars towards this loss, what would it be when divided among
the whole Union? And yet it would be enough to draw down countless
blessings upon us from these objects of distress. He hoped, therefore,
the committee would not be discharged. It was a case of peculiar and
almost unprecedented affliction, such as he hoped would not again occur;
and a decision in their favor would be applauded by every man, woman,
and child in the Union.

The question was then taken for going into a Committee of the Whole on
the subject, and carried by a considerable majority, there being 45
votes for it.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole,
when

Mr. W. SMITH said, he did not propose to fill up the blank at that time.
If the resolution was agreed to, the sum could be put in when the bill
came into the House. He himself should not think of proposing to fill
the blank with more than 15,000 dollars. This, it was true, was but a
small sum, but it would afford relief to the poorer class of sufferers,
and others could not expect to receive the amount of their losses. He
should move that the committee might rise and report the resolution.

Mr. HARTLEY called for the reading of the act allowing relief to the
sufferers by fire at St. Domingo. [It was read. It allowed 15,000
dollars for their relief, which sum was to be charged to the French
Republic, and if not allowed in six months, the relief was to be stopped
after that time.]

Mr. MACON wished the act allowing a sum of money to the daughters of
Count de Grasse to be read also. He did not think either of them in
point. The sufferings of the people of Savannah were doubtless very
great; no one could help feeling for them. But he wished gentlemen to
put their finger upon that part of the constitution which gave that
House power to afford them relief. Many other towns had suffered very
considerably by fire. He believed he knew one that had suffered more
than Savannah in proportion to its size: he alluded to Lexington in
Virginia, as every house in the place was burnt. If the United States
were to become underwriters to the whole Union, where must the line be
drawn when their assistance might be claimed? Was it when three-fourths
or four-fifths of a town was destroyed, or what other proportion?
Insurance offices were the proper securities against fire. If the
Government were to come forward in one instance, it must come forward in
all, since every sufferer's claim stood upon the same footing. The sum
which had been given to the sufferers at St. Domingo was to be charged
to the French Republic, and that given to Count de Grasse's daughters
was in consideration of their father's services. But New York had as
great right to come forward and expect relief as Savannah. He felt for
the sufferers in all these cases, but he felt as tenderly for the
constitution; he had examined it, and it did not authorize any such
grant. He should, therefore, be very unwilling to act contrary to it.

Mr. RUTHERFORD said, he felt a great deal of force on what gentlemen had
said. There were two circumstances which were perfectly conclusive in
his mind. He saw it our duty to grant relief from humanity and from
policy. Savannah was a city of a minor, helpless State; it was a very
young State, yet it was a part of the Union, and as such, was as much
entitled to protection as any State under such a direct misfortune; and
it became Congress to alleviate their great distress. They have lost
much; they have, many of them, lost their all. To say we will not assist
to relieve, when almost every State in the Union is putting their
shoulders to support these people's burden, is wrong. The State of
Pennsylvania has done itself immortal honor in the relief it has
afforded, and shall we not help to support this part of the family in
their distress? This State is a branch of the great family of the Union;
it would be, in my idea, extremely inconsistent to neglect them. He
hoped the motion would be adopted, and he hoped it would never be said
that the General Government refused to provide help in such a poignant
distress occurring in one of its principal towns.

Mr. HARTLEY said, that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. MACON) had
voted against both of the bills which had been referred to. He knew no
difference between the Constitution of the United States and that of
Pennsylvania, yet a vote in their House had been carried unanimously. He
thought the law for the relief of the sufferers of St. Domingo perfectly
in point; for, notwithstanding what was said about negotiation, the
distress of those people had consumed all the money before the six
months were expired. If ever there was a case in which they could grant
relief, this was one. The losses at New York and Charleston would bear
no comparison with that of Savannah; they were rich and flourishing
places, whilst Savannah was a small city of a new State, and the
sufferers generally poor. He hoped, therefore, the resolution would be
agreed to.

Mr. MOORE said, the laws which had been adduced as precedents were not
in point; for the one sum we were to have credit with the French
Republic, and the other was in consideration of past services. The
distress of the people of Savannah was not an object of legislation;
every individual citizen could, if he pleased, show his individual
humanity by subscribing to their relief; but it was not constitutional
for them to afford relief from the Treasury. If, however, the principle
was adopted, it should be general. Every sufferer had an equal claim.
Lexington, in Virginia, contained only one hundred houses, and all
except two had been destroyed by fire. He should therefore move to add
Lexington to Savannah in the resolution before them; though he would
observe, as he did not approve of the principle, he should vote against
them both.

Mr. VENABLE did not see the difference between the two cases which was
so distinguishable to the gentleman last up. Because Savannah was a
commercial city, its distress, according to that gentleman, was
indescribable, but when a like scene was exhibited in a small town, it
was no longer an object which touched his feelings. His humanity went no
where but where commerce was to be found. He asked whether the United
States might not as well lose revenue in the first instance, as put
money into the people's pockets to pay it with? Humanity was the same
every where. A person who lost his all in a village, felt the misfortune
as heavily as he who had a like loss in a city, and perhaps more so,
since the citizen would have a better opportunity by means of commerce
of retrieving his loss. He was against the general principle, as he
believed, if acted upon, it would bring such claims upon the Treasury as
it would not be able to answer.

Mr. MURRAY thought the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. VENABLE) carried his
idea of relief too far. He had no idea that that House, or any
Legislature, could undertake to make good individual misfortunes. He was
of opinion that the lines which separated individual from national
cases, were very observable; the one was happening every day, the other
seldom occurred. When a large town is burnt down, and that town is an
important Southern frontier town, it is surely a national calamity, and
has a claim upon the humanity of the country. It was true, the claim was
not of such a nature as to be brought into a Court of Justice, but it
was a calamity in which the whole nation sympathized. It was not only a
claim upon the humanity of the nation, but also upon its policy, as, by
restoring it to its former situation, it would be able to bear its
wonted part in contributing to the revenue of the country, and would
continue to carry population, arts, and wealth to that distant part of
the Union. In case of war, Savannah was a most important place. It was
necessary the Union should have a town in that situation, and he could
not consider any money which might now be advanced as given away, but as
lent to that town, which might enable it, in a few years, to resume its
former situation, whilst the withholding of it might prevent its ever
rising from its present ruins.

Mr. KITCHELL was opposed to the amendment and to the resolution itself.
He had doubts if even they were to give the citizens 15,000 dollars, as
was proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina, whether they should
not, instead of service, be doing them an injury; because, if the
General Government were only to give this sum, the State Legislatures
would proportion their donations accordingly, and probably give much
less than they would otherwise have done, if they had not had this
example before them. He had doubts as to the constitutionality of the
measure; he thought the constitution did not authorize them to make such
use of public money; however, he thought it might be a very flexible
instrument; it would bend to every situation, and every situation to
that. He thought, in this instance, if we grant money, while we attempt
to serve, we shall eventually injure. As to what the gentleman from
Virginia says of Lexington, Mr. K. thought it had been fully relieved;
however he should vote against both propositions.

Mr. PAGE said, that he was sorry that his colleague had made this
amendment, as he had done it with a view to defeat the original
resolution. If humanity alone were to direct his vote upon this
question, and if the amendment had been proposed more early and singly,
he might have voted for it. But that not being the case, it, as well as
motives of general policy, influenced him in favor of the original
motion. He had reasons which could not apply to the amendment. He should
vote against it. He was bound by order to confine himself to the single
question before the committee. This is, Shall the amendment be received
or not? He declared it as his opinion that the case of Lexington ought
not to be connected with that of Savannah, which had been, as stated by
the member from South Carolina, materially different. He was restrained
by order from entering into the merits of the original resolution, but
he thought that he had a right to hint at the motive of policy which
would apply to the resolution, and not to the amendment. This was, that
Savannah being an important place, it would be wise and politic to
prevent its revival from being owing to any other aid than that of the
General Government of the United States. It ought not to be under
obligations to individuals, or single States, and much less to a foreign
power.

Mr. HARTLEY hoped the amendment would not prevail. If the loss of the
people at Lexington had been greater than they could support, they would
doubtless have applied to the Legislature of Virginia, but he had not
heard of any such application having been made. He agreed with the
gentleman last up, that the General Government ought to relieve
distresses of this kind.

Mr. MURRAY inquired when the fire happened at Lexington?

Mr. MOORE answered, about nine months ago. He thought it was the duty of
the United States first to pay the claims which were made upon them by
distressed soldiers and others for past services, who were denied
justice because they had passed an act of limitation. If they were to
act from generosity, he said that generosity ought to be extended
universally. It was a new doctrine that because a sufferer by fire did
not live in a commercial city he was not equally entitled to relief with
the inhabitants of a city, and that though such persons were called upon
to contribute to the losses of others, they could have no redress for
their own. This seemed as if favorite spots were to be selected upon
which special favor was to be shown. He was opposed to all such
humanity.

Mr. CLAIBORNE was against the amendment, but he hoped the resolution
would be agreed to. He was sorry any gentleman should propose an
amendment like this, purposely to defeat a motion which would tend to
relieve such sufferers as those of Georgia must be. He was not certain
whether he could vote upon constitutional grounds or not. It was a sharp
conflict between humanity to that suffering country and the
constitution. If any case could be admissible, he thought this could; it
ought to be remembered, that that part of the Union has suffered much.
Georgia was a slaughter-pen during the war, besides being continually
harassed by the hostile Indians. He thought 15,000 dollars would not be
ill-spent, as from motives of policy it would be of more advantage to
the United States from the quick return the revenue would gain. Indeed,
if constitutional, he hoped the sum would be made more than proposed.
These are your fellow-citizens who are suffering, and if not speedily
relieved, the whole interest will be involved. If in order, he would
vote that the committee rise, to enable him and, perhaps, many others,
to consult whether relief could be constitutionally granted? He said he
felt a great propensity to do it.

The question was put on the amendment and negatived--there being only 26
in favor of it.

Mr. BALDWIN said, he had doubted whether to make any observations on
this motion; not that he was insensible to the calamitous situation
which had been the cause of it, but from an apprehension that it might
be thought he was too strongly affected by it. Though it might be
disagreeable to one to give his judgment and urge his opinions, when his
own relation to the question was different from that of others, yet some
of the reflections might not be useless to those who were to determine
it. He was sure it was not a want of disposition to relieve the unhappy
sufferers that had or would draw forth an observation on this occasion,
but merely doubts as to the powers of the Federal Government in money
matters. The use of a written constitution, and of that provision in it
which declared that no money should be drawn from the Treasury but under
appropriations made by law, was very manifest from the caution which it
gave in the expenditure of public money and in laying burdens on the
people; yet he believed it impossible to obtain absolute directions from
it in every case. The objection is, that Congress is empowered to raise
money only to pay the debts and to provide for the common defence, and
the other purposes, exactly as specified in the 8th section. The
objection has often been made, but many laws have passed not exactly
specified in that section. He mentioned the private acts before alluded
to, the law for establishing light-houses, to aid navigation in the
improvement of harbors, beacons, buoys, and public piers, establishing
trading-houses with the Indians, and some others, to show that though
the constitution was very useful in giving general directions, yet it
was not capable of being administered under so rigorous and mechanical a
construction as had been sometimes contended for.

Mr. GILES said, if the present resolution passed it would make them
answerable for all future losses by fire. The small sum of $15,000 was
not of any consequence when compared with the establishment of a
principle of that House acting upon generosity. He believed that
neither the money nor humanity, but the establishment of the principle,
was the thing aimed at. The unanimity with which a resolution had passed
the Pennsylvania Legislature, was a proof that they believed they had
the power to pass such a law. It was said the General Government
possessed the authority. The gentleman from Georgia had said that
"affairs of men" made it necessary to depart from the strict
constitutional power. For his part, he did not think they ought to
attend to what "the affairs of men" or what generosity and humanity
required, but what the constitution and their duty required.

The authority of that House, he said, was specified, beyond which they
ought not to go. This was a principle not within the constitution, but
opposed to it.

There had, he said, been several cases introduced. That of the sufferers
of St. Domingo was not a case in point. They looked for a reimbursement
of the money. He believed it had been repaid. And when the daughters of
the Count de Grasse had $4,000 given them, it was thought to be
necessary to introduce their father's services as a consideration. His
feelings, he said, were not less alive to the calls of humanity than
those of other gentlemen; but, by granting the money required, they
should go beyond their powers, and do more real injury than good.

Mr. CLAIBORNE said, the more he heard, the more he found himself in
favor of the resolution. By the discussion it had undergone, he was
inclined to think it was, perhaps, reconcilable with the constitution;
perhaps it was, he said, for he was not certain. The annual revenue, he
said, of that place, was seventy thousand dollars to the United States,
besides the great consideration of it as a frontier town. He had
compared the advantages and disadvantages with respect to its relief in
his own mind, and thought it would be highly consistent with policy to
grant relief. It was a place which had been in great distress, and had
great struggles with enemies in times past. Can it be possible to
suppose that we have not power to assist in erecting that place again,
and putting it upon a footing to do good to the United States by a
return of her revenue? Certainly not. Would the committee be willing
that Savannah should be erased from the revenue? Are they willing to let
it rest, and lose it? This is impossible. Then, surely, it becomes
policy to give aid towards its re-erection. Unless the people do receive
some aid, it will be a long time before seventy thousand dollars will be
again produced from the revenue of that place.

The committee then rose and reported their disagreement, when the House
took it up.

The question was then taken, and the yeas and nays demanded, "that the
House do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their
disagreement to the motion," and resolved in the affirmative--yeas 55,
nays 24, as follows:

      YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, David Bard, Thomas Blount,
      Theophilus Bradbury, Richard Brent, Samuel J. Cabell,
      Gabriel Christie, John Clopton, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles,
      James Davenport, George Dent, Abiel Foster, Jesse Franklin,
      Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Ezekiel Gilbert, William B. Giles,
      James Gillespie, Nicholas Gilman, Chauncey Goodrich,
      Christopher Greenup, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove,
      Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, James
      Holland, Andrew Jackson, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell,
      John Wilkes Kittera, Edward Livingston, Samuel Lyman,
      William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, Andrew
      Moore, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Francis
      Preston, John Read, Samuel Sewall, Nathaniel Smith, Israel
      Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., William Strudwick, John
      Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, Richard Thomas, Philip Van
      Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, Peleg
      Wadsworth, and John Williams.

      NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne,
      William Craik, George Ege, Dwight Foster, Henry Glenn,
      Andrew Gregg, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley,
      William Hindman, Francis Malbone, John Milledge, Frederick
      A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John Page, Elisha R.
      Potter, John Richards, Robert Rutherford, John S.
      Sherburne, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Isaac Smith,
      and William Smith.


THURSDAY, December 29.

GEORGE HANCOCK, from Virginia, appeared, and took his seat.

_Canadian Refugees._

Mr. WILLIAMS moved for the order of the day, that the House resolve
itself into a committee on the reports of committees to whom were
referred the petitions of sundry refugees from Canada and Nova Scotia.

The first resolution read from the last report of the select committee
on this subject, was in these words:

      "_Resolved_, That the prayer of the Petitioners, Joseph
      Green and others, from Canada, praying a bounty in lands
      and other pay, for services rendered in the late war with
      Great Britain, ought not to be granted."

This resolution was agreed to. The second was thus:

      "_Resolved_, That a tract of land, not exceeding ----
      acres, be laid off north-west of the Ohio River, beginning
      at the mouth of the Great Miami, and extending down the
      Ohio, not exceeding three times the breadth in length, be
      immediately appropriated to compensate the refugees from
      the British provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia, pursuant
      to the resolves of Congress of the 23d of April, 1783, and
      the 13th April, 1785."

Mr. WILLIAMS hoped the situation of the land would not be mentioned in
the resolution; there were many circumstances that would render it
unnecessary and improper.

Mr. HARTLEY wished to know where the land was to be, because the value
of the land in different places was various; he thought they ought to
have land: he would not be thought to object to the resolution.

Mr. VENABLE did not think it necessary to mention at this time what land
should be appropriated for this purpose. A bill would be introduced in a
few days, it could then be determined. If there were objections to
appropriate the land mentioned, he hoped gentlemen would then propose a
spot that would suit every conveniency better. These people, he said,
ought to be satisfied: it was time they were.

Mr. DAYTON said, that the Chairman of the committee said there was no
land near Lake Erie of that description belonging to the United States;
he wished to know what foundation the assertion had?

Mr. GREENUP said, the committee had made what inquiry they could on the
subject, of persons well informed, who told them there was no land
belonging to the United States of that description.

Mr. SITGREAVES would vote for striking out the clause as it stood, not
from any knowledge he had on the justice of the claims, but, if just,
satisfaction should be given. The committee had not reported as to the
value of land necessary to be given; the value of land was proportioned
to its different qualities and location; he thought it would be as well
for these people, to give them military land warrants, and let them
locate by lot: this had heretofore been the method, and he thought it
would be as advantageous to them as any, and avoid many difficulties
with respect to the grant.

Mr. MACON hoped the question would be divided; he liked the proposition
of the gentleman last up, to strike out, and insert the words proposed;
he therefore would wish the committee to rise, and report progress; or,
if the House do not adopt the substitute, he hoped it would be
recommitted.

Mr. DAYTON moved to strike out the words relative to location, and
substitute the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law for
      granting donations of land to Canadian and Nova Scotia
      refugees, in conformity to the resolves of Congress of the
      23d of April, 1783, and the 13th of April, 1785."

This resolution was adopted.

The third was--

      "_Resolved_, That five hundred acres of land be granted to
      each refugee from Canada and Nova Scotia."

This resolution was attended with three explanatory restrictions. It
passed, and the Chairman read the first of these rules, which was, "that
the applicant shall make proof, before some Court of record, of his
actual residence in one of the provinces aforesaid, previous to the ----
day of ----."

Mr. GREENUP supposed this was meant merely as the outlines of a plan to
be completed when the bill was brought in; at this time it was necessary
that instruction should be given to the committee that they may bring in
a bill consistent with the will of the House.

Mr. DAYTON objected to this, and the two following clauses. He objected
also to the resolution for an indiscriminate grant of five hundred acres
of land to each refugee. Some of these people would be found to deserve
more and some less, in proportion to their exertion and sufferings. Some
might have lost large property, or have had large families. If Mr.
DAYTON had observed what the committee were doing, he would have
objected to the passing of that clause. He likewise opposed the present
one. This clause and the remaining two were negatived.

The Committee of the Whole then rose. The Chairman reported progress.
The House took up the report. The first resolution and the second, as
altered in the committee, were agreed to.

The question on the third resolution was then put.

Mr. MACON thought that it would be exceedingly improper to grant an
equal quantity to each; it ought to be entirely circumstantial.

Mr. GREENUP was of the same opinion; he said some of these people had
suffered more than others. The circumstances of some were such that they
were in irons, in close confinement twelve or fourteen months, many of
them had the warrant signed for their execution, and a variety of
cruelties were exercised: these distresses required consideration.

Mr. BALDWIN hoped it would be struck out; the House should not go into
particulars of the quantity to be given, or the circumstances of the
persons; he had seen great difficulty attending these specifications. He
did not like this loose way of doing business; they need not open land
offices for that purpose; some way would be found out to give the people
satisfaction.

Mr. WILLIAMS hoped the committee would not be restricted.

The question on the third resolution was then put, and lost.

A committee was then appointed of Messrs. GILMAN, WILLIAMS, and GREENUP,
with instructions to bring in a bill pursuant to the resolutions as
amended.


_Kidnapping Negroes._

Mr. SWANWICK called the order of the day on a report of the Committee of
Commerce and Manufactures, made the last session, on a memorial from the
State of Delaware, respecting the kidnapping of negroes and mulattoes.
The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the subject.

Mr. SWANWICK said, that there was a mischievous practice in use of
carrying these people away from the place of their residence, by masters
of vessels, and selling them in other parts. The plan of the committee
was to get instructions from the House to bring in a bill making it
necessary for every master of a vessel to have a certificate of the
number and situation of any negroes or mulattoes he may have on board.
He hoped the measure would not at all be opposed, as it only prevented
thefts in this case.

Mr. COIT wished to know whether it was necessary for the United States
to intermeddle with this? He wished the report had been more
satisfactory, and stated the principles upon which it was formed with
more precision. The evil, he doubted not, existed, but the law might
create a greater evil than that it was intended to cure. It appeared to
him that the laws in the several States were fully adequate to the
subject without further provision; he was not ready to give a vote on it
either way at present.

Mr. SWANWICK said, the report was grounded on an application from the
Legislature of Delaware. [Mr. S. here read the memorial from that State
to Congress.] The practice, he said, was very injurious and dangerous to
that State, and he hoped a remedy would be attempted, as it was in the
power of Congress to provide one by this method; some of the States had
made an attempt to remedy this evil, but their laws were broken with
impunity. If the resolution of the committee passed, he should move that
the committee bring in a bill in pursuance thereto.

Mr. SWANWICK said, the laws of the different States forbade the stealing
of negroes; but they had no remedy that would take effect out of their
own State: and although each had effect in their own State, yet they had
no power on the water. The intention of the present measure was to
oblige masters of vessels, when they cleared out of any ports in the
Delaware, when they took any negro or mulatto on board, to have a
certificate of their being free. The situation of the State of Delaware,
communicating with both the Delaware and Chesapeake, was, in this
respect, particularly exposed to insult and injury; but this remedy, he
thought, would be effectual. The gentleman last up wished the committee
to rise, in order to recommit it: he should vote for it if the gentleman
was willing to add, "to bring in a bill." The gentleman was in the
committee, if he had stated his objections there, it might have saved
time.

Mr. MURRAY wished to know what was fully meant by the idea of preventing
kidnapping. He confessed he did not rightly understand the meaning of
the word. Was the intention of the committee to have reference to the
taking of free negroes and selling them as slaves, or the taking slaves
to make them free?

Mr. SWANWICK said it was intended to prevent both evils. It was intended
to prevent their being stolen from their masters; and, also, to prevent
the power of the master taking them to the other States to sell them.
This measure, he thought, would prevent both. The State of Maryland had
taken measures to prevent it themselves; they had made it a heavy
penalty to take a negro out of the State; but that is not effectual to
prevent the evil now complained of. This was meant to prevent the
practice of examining ships before they sailed and when they arrived.

Mr. W. SMITH wished the committee to rise; not with a view of
recommitting the report, but to get rid of the business altogether. The
subject, he said, involved many serious questions; it required very
serious consideration, and he wished it had never come up. It was a
question with him how far Congress had a right to meddle with it at all.
He felt alarmed on the subject as brought from that State. He considered
it as a kind of entering-wedge, as a gentleman had lately said, on
another occasion. It was altogether a municipal regulation, and not at
all connected with trade or commerce, and therefore ought to be left to
the State Legislatures to settle. He did not think the constitution
allowed that House to act in it.

Gentlemen had said, that the laws of the States took no effect on the
waters. This, he thought, was founded on a mistake. The laws of the
States could prevent robbery on water as well as on land, if within the
jurisdiction of the United States. He hoped the committee would rise,
and dismiss the subject.

Mr. ISAAC SMITH thought the gentleman knew not the proper meaning of the
report. It was not to make a law against stealing merely, but against
its being done successfully; many instances, he said, had occurred,
where they had been hid many days on board the ships and taken away in
the night to the West Indies, and other parts of the world to sell them.
It was impossible that the existing laws of the States should prevent
this fraudulent practice: the intent of this law was to prevent this
practice; by being examined, and forced to take certificates along with
them, it could not be easily done. The particulars of the remedy would
be more readily seen when the bill was brought in; it would explain
itself; it then might be modified, altered, or rejected altogether. He
thought it could give no offence or cause of alarm to any gentleman; and
he was sure it was no way contrary to the constitution.

Mr. MACON wished the committee to rise, and not have leave to sit again.
He began to see more of the impropriety of the measure than before, and
for the same reasons as the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. SMITH.)

Mr. SWANWICK said, this House had ascertained a certain proof, by which
our seamen are known, by giving them a certificate of their citizenship,
specifying their person and freedom, which had operated against
impressment: and was it not equally necessary, and would it not be
equally competent, to protect a man from injuries to which his color has
exposed him? Our unfortunate negroes and mulattoes are exposed by their
color to much insult. In some places, he said, they were so exposed,
that color alone was evidence of slavery. He would not enter into the
question, whether all ought to be free, because it was not immediately
before the House; but if these people were black or white, if free, they
ought to be protected in the enjoyment of their freedom, not only by
State Legislatures but by the General Government.

Mr. MURRAY did not expect to have raised the sensibility of the
gentleman last up. It really arose from his ignorance, he said. He
wished to know the origin of the matter; he did not know whether it had
originated in a memorial, or whether it came from the humanity of some
patriotic member, unsolicited. Great and manifold evils did exist in
this point; he meant to make a motion on the subject, as Maryland felt
heavily from the practice. He confessed he was not sufficiently
acquainted with the English language to know the proper meaning of the
word _kidnapping_; he therefore wished to know if it extended to the
object he had in view. He declared he did not wish to encourage the
harboring of negroes; far from it; he wished to prevent it. He did not
think the law extended far enough on that point; at present, negroes,
through the influence of their own minds, or the insinuations of others,
or both, frequently leave their masters, and are harbored by other
persons. The law takes no notice of this, except it can be proved that
the negro is some person's property, and has absconded: this is very
difficult to prove; therefore great evils attend its lenity. 'Tis true,
if it can be proved that the negro has absconded and was harbored, there
was a very heavy penalty inflicted; but, he said, this was difficult to
prove. This, he owned, was his _insinuation_, as the gentleman termed
it; and upon this subject he meant to claim the attention of the House.
This evil, he said, might arise from the false philosophy and misplaced
philanthropy of the advocates of emancipation. He was ever willing to
give the question a fair trial, and thought himself bound to thank the
gentleman for his extreme benevolence in advocating it.

Mr. SWANWICK, to satisfy the gentleman from Maryland, told him, that the
subject came before the House from the State of Delaware.

Mr. W. SMITH said, he did not know how far the committee should go, he
should not vote for the matter to go into the committee. He said, it was
that kind of business which, by the constitution, was to be left to the
different States, he could not agree to the subject going any further.
The observations of the gentleman from Pennsylvania had convinced him
that that House ought not to interfere with the individual States on the
subject; the interests and policy of the different States were so
various, that it would be a dangerous thing to meddle with. He thought
it an improper question for discussion; he conceived it would be sound
policy not to touch it in that House. The gentleman had gone too far to
make use of the word _emancipation_. He feared lest the use of it should
spread an alarm through some of the States. It might imperceptibly lead
from step to step till it ends in mischief.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the business would not be dismissed. We, said Mr. N.,
who reside in the Southern States, are unfortunately possessed of such a
kind of property as has a considerable odium attached to it; but, if we
unfortunately hold slaves, we ought not to contribute to the making
slaves of free men, but I would wish to establish them in their freedom.
If we can give relief as the thing exists, let it be; by all means do
it, whether it incur the pleasure or displeasure of some of the
slaveholders. He hoped the subject would have full investigation.

The question was then put for the committee to rise. Fifty-four members
rising in the affirmative, it was carried.

Mr. SITGREAVES then moved for the Committee of the Whole to be
discharged from the further consideration of the report; this, he said,
was in order to make way for another motion to refer it back to the
committee, to report by bill or otherwise.

The question was put, and the committee discharged.

Mr. SWANWICK moved that the business be recommitted to the Committee of
Commerce and Manufactures, to report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. COIT wished the subject to be postponed for further consideration
before it was sent to the committee. He had doubts as to the propriety
of sending it at all. He thought it had not had that discussion a
subject so important required.

Mr. W. SMITH said, he believed this was the first time it was considered
in the House. It had been tried in a committee but never taken up by the
House, and now gentlemen wished to send it back to the committee, with
instructions to bring in a bill. The Committee of Commerce and
Manufactures was considerably deranged since last session, when this
business came before them; many new members were added, and it required
more information before it could come to the conclusion prescribed.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, if any one good purpose could be derived to the
House or to the gentlemen, he would not oppose it; but he was at a loss
to know what good object could be attained by a delay. With respect to
what had been said by the gentleman, (Mr. SMITH,) that the committee
were forced to bring in a bill, he was surprised that such an idea
should be formed. If that committee report a bill, this House is not
even pledged to pass it. When the subject is sent to the committee with
that instruction, can it be conceived that committee is forced to report
a bill? There is no such thing intended nor included in the words, as
either this House should be pledged to pass a bill, or that the
committee should report one. The object is, that the House, through the
medium of the committee, should have a plan prepared for their
consideration, and the word "otherwise" leaves the committee to exercise
its own discretion as to the report.

The gentleman from Connecticut, with a prudence and consistency highly
becoming, wishes time to think on the subject. But how is that gentleman
to have foundation for his reflections until a bill is drawn? Mr. S. did
not know what were the resources of that gentleman's mind, but for
himself, he must own that in all the attitudes in which this subject
had presented itself, he could not distinctly see the plan. One
gentleman had said there was no remedy the United States could apply but
what was incompatible with the laws of the individual States. Mr. S.
presumed that until he saw the mode to be adopted, he could not say
whether it was easy or difficult. On the whole, he thought to postpone
the subject could answer no good end, while it might delay the object,
and do injury.

Mr. COIT said, very probably the resources of his mind may not be equal
to that gentleman's, he therefore wished the subject to be delayed that
he might have time to get into the knowledge of the business.

Mr. COIT'S motion for postponement was then put and carried--yeas 46,
nays 30.


_Hugh Lawson White._

Mr. BLOUNT then called for the order of the day on the report of the
Secretary of War on the petition of Hugh Lawson White, a soldier under
General Sevier, against the Indians. The House accordingly resolved
itself into a Committee of the Whole.

The following report from the Committee of Claims was then read:

      That the claim set forth in the said petition, is intended
      to establish a principle that will apply to the whole of
      the militia which were called out under Brigadier General
      Sevier, in 1793, to act offensively against certain Indians
      south-west of the Ohio.

      That the expedition against these Indians, as appears from
      the muster-rolls, comprehended a period of above five
      months, or from the 22d July to 31st December, 1793.

      That it was undertaken without authority derived from the
      President, under the laws of the United States, and for the
      avowed purpose of carrying the war into the Cherokee
      country.

      That the tenor of the instructions from the Department of
      War to the Governor of the South-western Territory forbade
      offensive operations.

      Having given these facts, it may be proper to add, that it
      appears, by a recurrence to official papers, that the
      Indians had greatly perplexed and harassed by thefts and
      murders, the frontier inhabitants of Tennessee; and
      previous to the service, for which compensation is
      demanded, had shown themselves in considerable force, and
      killed at two stations (one of them within seven miles of
      Knoxville) fifteen persons, including women and children:
      that it must rest with Congress to judge how far these
      aggressions of Indians, and such other circumstances as can
      be adduced to the parties, constitute a case of imminent
      danger, or the expedition a just and necessary measure.

Mr. A. JACKSON[5] said, by a recurrence to the papers just read, he
doubted not it would appear evident, that the measures pursued on the
occasion alluded to were both just and necessary. When it was seen that
war was waged upon the State, that the knife and the tomahawk were held
over the heads of women and children, that peaceable citizens were
murdered, it was time to make resistance. Some of the assertions of the
Secretary at War, he said, were not founded in fact; particularly with
respect to the expedition being undertaken for the avowed purpose of
carrying the war into the Cherokee country; indeed they were
contradicted by a reference to General Smith's letter to the Secretary
of War. He trusted it would not be presuming too much, when he said,
from being an inhabitant of the country, he had some knowledge of this
business. From June to the end of October, he said, the militia acted
entirely on the defensive, when twelve hundred Indians came upon them
and carried their station, and threatened to carry the seat of
Government. In such a state, said Mr. J., would the Secretary (upon whom
the Executive power rested, in the absence of the Governor) have been
justified, had he not adopted the measure he did of pursuing the enemy?
He believed he would not; that the expedition was just and necessary,
and that, therefore, the claim of Mr. White ought to be granted.

He therefore proposed a resolution to the following effect:

      "_Resolved_, That General Sevier's expedition into the
      Cherokee Nation, in the year 1793, was a just and necessary
      measure, and that provision ought to be made by law for
      paying the expenses thereof."

Mr. HARPER said, this appeared to be a subject of considerable
importance; he hoped the resolution would, for the present, lie on the
table. He therefore moved that the committee rise and ask leave to sit
again.

Mr. COIT said, the report wanted some more preparation before it should
have come before the House; he would therefore move that it be referred
to the Committee of Claims; he knew of no reason against this reference,
as many reports from Heads of Departments had been so referred.

Mr. BLOUNT hoped the motion would not prevail. The expedient of
referring it to the Secretary at War was resorted to, when it first came
before the House. He hoped now it would not be deferred, but decided on.
He thought the Committee of Claims, from having once had it before the
House, knew as much of the case as they could know, and perhaps all was
included in this report.

Mr. D. FOSTER made the same observations in effect as Mr. BLOUNT.

Mr. COIT said, gentlemen had not given a shadow of a reason why it
should not be referred to that committee.

Mr. JACKSON owned he was not very well acquainted with the rules of the
House, but from the best idea he could form, it was a very circuitous
way of doing business. Why now refer it to the Committee of Claims, when
all the facts are stated in this report, he knew not. If this was the
usual mode of doing business, he hoped it would not be referred.

Mr. W. LYMAN thought, the time it was under consideration before, when
referred to the Secretary at War, was the time to have thought of
referring it to that committee; but now it was too late; now the House
had a report before it. It appeared to him a mere formality. It looks
like throwing the business out. He had not made up his mind which way he
should vote, but he thought one report was sufficient; he, therefore,
hoped it would come under consideration.

Mr. BLOUNT said, when he first presented the petition, he moved it to be
referred to the Committee of Claims; it was then rejected, and sent to
the Secretary at War.

The Committee rose, and obtained leave to sit again.


FRIDAY, December 30.

_The Chickasaw Claims._

ALEXANDER D. ORR, from Kentucky, appeared, and took his seat.

Mr. ANDREW JACKSON presented a petition of George Colbert, one of the
chiefs and warriors of the Chickasaw nation of Indians, complaining of a
non-performance of stipulations entered into in certain _talks_ held
with Governor Blount and other agents of the United States, in which
they agreed in defensive support of each other's rights; that their
nation was invaded by the red people, (the Creeks,) when they applied,
according to treaty, for aid; that their brother, James Robertson, said
he had no orders to send them any assistance; and that he must first
have orders from their father the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
However, a detachment of volunteers under the command of Colonel
Mansker, came to their aid. He asked compensation for supplies furnished
to that detachment during sixty days. He said he had applied to his
beloved friend the Secretary at War, who told him that Congress had set
apart no money out of which it could be paid; he, therefore, applied to
Congress for relief.

This petition was referred to the Committee of Claims.

_Hugh Lawson White._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
petition of Hugh Lawson White.

The resolution of Mr. ANDREW JACKSON having been read,

Mr. COIT called for the reading of the petition upon which the report
was founded. It was read.

Mr. A. JACKSON said, the rations found for the troops on this expedition
had already been paid for by the Secretary of War, and he could see no
reasonable objection to the payment of the whole expense attending the
expedition. As the troops were called out by a superior officer, they
had no right to doubt his authority. Were a contrary doctrine admitted,
it would strike at the very root of subordination. It would be saying
to soldiers, "Before you obey the command of your superior officer, you
have a right to inquire into the legality of the service upon which you
are about to be employed, and, until you are satisfied, you may refuse
to take the field." This, he believed, was a principle which could not
be acted upon. General Sevier, Mr. J. said, was bound to obey the orders
he received to undertake the expedition. The officers under him were
also obliged to obey him. They went with full confidence that the United
States would pay them, believing that they had appointed such officers
as would not call them into the field without proper authority. If even
the expedition had been unconstitutional (which he was far from
believing), it ought not to affect the soldier, since he had no choice
in the business, being obliged to obey his superior. Indeed, as the
provisions had been paid for, and as the ration and pay-rolls were
always considered a check upon each other, he hoped no objection would
be made to the resolution which he had moved.

Mr. COIT said, he had called for the reading of the petition, because he
could not see the connection between it and the resolution under
consideration. The petition prayed for recompense for the services of
the petitioner, and the men under his command, and the proper resolution
would be that the prayer of it ought or might not be granted; but,
instead of this, the resolution before them went to the whole troops
employed in General Sevier's expedition.

Mr. A. JACKSON said, by referring to the report it would be seen that
the Secretary of War had stated, that to allow the prayer of this
petition, would be to establish a principle that would apply to the
whole of the militia in that expedition. If this petitioner's claim was
a just one therefore, the present decision ought to go to the whole, as
it was unnecessary for every soldier employed in that expedition, to
apply personally to that House for compensation.

Mr. RUTHERFORD observed, that the gentleman from Tennessee had set the
matter in so fair a light that it was not necessary to say much more on
the subject; but, as he had been acquainted with the frontier from his
infancy, he would just give it as his opinion, that the expedition was a
necessary one, and that the expense ought immediately to be paid. He
hoped, therefore, the resolution would be agreed to unanimously.

Mr. HARPER was not prepared to say, without more information than he had
on the subject, that the measure was just and necessary, or the
contrary. He felt disposed to think favorably of the expedition; but he
thought the House should have further information before it came to any
resolution on the subject. They had, it was true, a letter from General
Smith, the then Secretary, but he thought this was not sufficient. He
thought it would be better to refer the report and other papers to a
select committee, with instructions to inquire into the necessity and
propriety of the expedition, and report thereon. He hoped, therefore,
the present resolution would be disagreed to, and the committee would
rise. He would then bring forward a resolution to that effect. The
Secretary of War, he said, had not gone fully into the subject; he had
given them copies of two letters, but not his opinion. He did not think
that an expedition of so important a nature, and which must involve in
it a very heavy expense, should be decided upon without further
information.

Mr. CRAIK agreed in sentiment with the gentleman from South Carolina,
(Mr. HARPER.) He said there was great difficulty in forming an opinion
from the report itself; though the Secretary of War seemed to think the
calling out of the Militia necessary, there were other expressions in
the report which appeared to convey a contrary sentiment. He referred to
the letter of General Smith, but mentioned that there were other papers.
He could not say the expedition was not necessary; but he thought
further information was desirable, and the report should be committed to
a select committee, for the purpose of gaining that information.

Mr. W. SMITH agreed with the two gentlemen last up, that further
information was necessary. The question, he said, involved a number of
important points. In the first place, a question was involved, whether,
if the expeditions was necessary, as it was not authorized by law, the
expense ought to be defrayed by the United States? By the report of the
Secretary of War, it had appeared that Congress were well apprised of
all the circumstances which rendered the expedition necessary, yet they
did not think proper to authorize it. In the letter of the Secretary of
War to Governor Blount, on the subject, was this passage:

      "If those difficulties existed while the Congress were in
      session, and which, it was conceived, they alone were
      competent to remove, they recur, in the present case, with
      still greater force; for all the information received at
      the time Congress were in session, was laid before both
      Houses, but no order was taken thereon, nor any authority
      given to the President of the United States; of consequence
      his authority remains in the same situation it did on the
      commencement of the last session. It is, indeed, a serious
      question to plunge the nation into a war with the Southern
      tribes of Indians, supported as it is said they would be."

Mr. S. also read from the report "that the expedition was undertaken
without authority," &c. The Secretary afterwards, indeed, stated, in his
report, the disagreeable situation of the country at the time, by way of
palliative; but, as Congress were possessed of these facts, and did not
authorize offensive operations, it became a nice point to determine
whether the expedition in question was justifiable. He would not say
that such a situation of things might not occur as would justify a
measure of the kind, but it was of consequence to determine whether this
was such a case, which could not be done hastily. Neither had the House
any information of the magnitude of the expense, whether it would be
two or three hundred thousand or half a million of dollars. He should,
therefore, hope the Committee of the Whole would be discharged, and that
the subject would be committed to a select committee.

Mr. MADISON saw no necessity for referring this subject to a select
committee. If it was suggested that the official information which was
before them was inaccurate, and that a more full explanation of the
situation of things was necessary, there would be some ground of
reference; but he did not find that this was the case. The Secretary of
War stated facts, and referred to documents to prove "that the Indians
had greatly perplexed and harassed, by thefts and murders, the frontier
inhabitants of Tennessee, had shown themselves in considerable force,
and killed at two stations fifteen persons." If this was a state of
facts, and it could not be doubted, the words of the constitution on the
subject were clear: "No State shall, without the consent of Congress,
lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace,
enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a
foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such
imminent danger as will not admit of delay."[6] There could be no doubt,
therefore, Mr. M. said, but this expedition came within the meaning of
the constitution. In many cases, he said, it was difficult to determine
betwixt offensive and defensive operations, as it was sometimes
necessary, when acting on the defensive, to use an offensive measure. He
had no doubt on the subject, and thought the expense of the expedition
should, by all means, be paid.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, that he was not prepared to adopt the
resolution which was moved by the member from Tennessee, nor even to
decide finally upon it, unless he could be persuaded that the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) was correct in saying that the report before
them contained all the information which it was possible for them to
obtain. He was convinced that there were other official papers and
documents which would throw additional light upon the subject, and
therefore, ought to be in possession of the Committee of the Whole
before they took any decisive step. He alluded to the confidential
communications from the PRESIDENT, in December, 1792, which gave rise to
lengthy discussion, with closed galleries, upon the measures that ought
to be adopted in consequence of the hostile acts and threats of those
very south-western Indians, who were the objects of the expedition for
which they were called upon to pay. The House of Representatives then
decided that they would neither declare war against those nations of
Indians, nor authorize the PRESIDENT to carry an offensive expedition
into their country, if, in the recess of Congress, he should deem it
proper, in consequence of their continuance in hostility. As the acts of
Congress upon this very application would operate in future as a
precedent and kind of commentary on that part of the constitution which
limited the instances in which a State might levy troops and act
offensively, without the previous assent of the General Government, they
could not, Mr. D. said, be too particular in their investigation, nor
too strict in their reference to dates and facts. He hoped that the
Committee of the Whole, would be discharged, and the report of the
Secretary of War referred to a select committee, whose duty it would be
to report those facts, with their dates, which gave rise to the claim in
question, and which justified, under the provision in the constitution,
the raising of troops and carrying on an offensive war, without the
previous consent of Congress or approbation of the PRESIDENT.

Mr. NICHOLAS believed, on a reference to dates, it would be seen that
these attacks of the Indians were subsequent to those which were in the
knowledge of Congress at the time mentioned, as they took place while
Governor Blount was at Philadelphia; and he thought no further
information was necessary on the subject than the letter from General
Smith to the Secretary of War, printed with the report, to prove that
the expedition was both just and necessary. General Sevier's going into
the Cherokee country was no proof that his operations were offensive. If
other information could be obtained by referring the business to a
select committee, he should have no objection; but he believed this
would not be the case. He wished the letter of General Smith to be read.
[It was read accordingly.]

Mr. BALDWIN was not able to recollect how great a portion of the members
present were in the House when this business was brought before Congress
in the year 1792. His own recollection was fresh upon the subject. It
was a period when they were much alarmed for our Indian frontier, North
and South. The North was fortified, and it was recommended to have a
legion on the South. The gentleman from South Carolina, he recollected,
was opposed to the measure, and thought the Executive had determined too
soon upon hostility. Mr. B. said he had at that time frequent
conversations with the then Secretary of War, who informed him that he
had written to the Governor of Tennessee that, in case the pressure of
the Indians was so great as to require it, he must call out the militia.
The Governor was well known, and sufficient confidence was placed in him
that this power would not be abused. He believed the troops on the
Northern frontier had not proved sufficient, and that they had already
paid the expense of troops which were called in to their assistance. At
this period, Mr. B. said, the danger which threatened the country was
great, and it was happy for us it had been so well got over. He believed
it was well that the legion for the Southern frontier was not equipped,
though he at that time thought it necessary. The expense of the
expedition in question, he said, would be nothing compared with that
which would have taken place had the legion contemplated been equipped.
Mr. B. said, he had no doubt with respect to the propriety of paying the
expense of this expedition. He did not think the number of men was
great, or that the charge would be very heavy.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, he was inclined to believe the attacks of
the Indians, which provoked the expedition of General Sevier, were
subsequent to those in the knowledge of Congress at the time the subject
was under discussion.

He was one of those, he said, who thought that the hostile dispositions
shown by those Indians at that time called for force, and he had
introduced a resolution, by means of his colleague, to that effect. It
was not, therefore, that he did not think the expedition authorized, but
because he had a desire to have the facts relative to the subject
clearly stated, that he wished the business to be committed to a select
committee.

Mr. RUTHERFORD said, they were not particular about the manner of doing
the business, provided it was done. He was confident the expense of the
expedition ought to be paid. When the Indians were upon them, what could
the Governor do? Was he to send forward to the seat of Government to be
instructed what to do? No; resistance was necessary, and it was not
becoming in them now to say, "You did not act perfectly regular--the
thing was not exactly as it should have been." It was a critical period,
he said, and if the expenses were not paid, it might have a bad effect
in future.

Mr. KITCHELL was in favor of the committee rising. He remembered the
transactions which took place on this business, as mentioned by his
colleague, (Mr. DAYTON.) He said, he was one of those who voted against
the proposition of using hostile means, because he thought it possible
to ward off the evil. It had been warded off; but he believed there was
sufficient ground for calling out General Sevier, and he doubted not, if
the business was referred to a select committee, the result would be
satisfactory to those gentlemen who brought forward the business.

The committee rose, and leave not being granted to sit again, on motion,
the report and papers accompanying it were referred to a select
committee of Messrs. A. JACKSON, J. SMITH, BLOUNT, DENT, and HARPER.[7]


FRIDAY, January 20, 1797.

_Direct Taxes._

The House then took up the consideration of the resolution reported
yesterday by the Committee of the Whole, on the subject of further
revenue.

Mr. COIT wished for a division of the question, viz: that the
proposition for a tax on land and that for slaves should be put
separately.

Mr. SWANWICK called for the yeas and nays. They were agreed to be taken.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought the resolution should not be divided, but that the
propositions for a tax on land and a tax on slaves should go together,
as he should object to vote for the tax on land except that on slaves
accompanied it. He thought the gentleman had better try the question, by
moving to strike out what respected slaves.

Mr. MADISON thought it would be best for the two propositions to go
together; but if they did not, he did not think the embarrassments
insuperable. If the question was divided, those who thought a tax on
slaves necessary must vote for the first part; and if the second was
rejected, there would not be wanting an opportunity of voting against
the tax on land. It was necessary to observe, that it had been found
expedient to associate these two taxes together, in order to do justice,
and to conform to the established usage of a very large tract of
country, who were entitled to some degree of attention, and to whom a
tax on land, without a tax on slaves, would be very objectionable.

Mr. COIT said, he could not gratify the gentleman from Virginia by
varying his motion, as it would not answer the purpose he had in view.

Mr. NICHOLAS supposed, if the motion was persisted in, he was at liberty
to move to insert _slaves_ in the first part of the resolution. The
gentleman certainly knew his own views best; or he thought it was
possible to have settled the business he proposed.

Mr. W. SMITH saw no difficulty on the subject. Gentlemen would vote for
the first part of the resolution, in hopes that the second would pass;
but if it did not pass, they would have an opportunity of voting on the
main question, and thereby defeat the whole.

Mr. VAN CORTLANDT would vote for both together, but not separately.

Mr. GALLATIN inquired as to a point of order, whether, if the first
part of the resolution was carried, and the second negatived, the
question would not then be taken upon the resolution as amended?

The SPEAKER answered in the affirmative.

Mr. WILLIAMS said, it would save time if the question was taken upon the
whole resolution together; for if several gentlemen voted against the
first proposition, lest the last should not pass, the whole might in
this way be defeated. He thought a vote might be safely taken upon the
whole together, as no one would be bound by the vote in favor of the
bill, if he should not approve of it. For his own part, he wished to see
the plan, though he did not know that he should vote for it.

Mr. NICHOLAS supposed there was not the difficulty mentioned by the
gentleman from New York. Gentlemen would not risk the whole by voting
against the first part of the resolution; since, if the second was not
carried, they could afterwards reject the whole.

The question was then put, that the House agree to the first resolution,
viz:

      "_Resolved_, That there ought to be appropriated, according
      to the last census, on the several States, the sum of----,
      to be raised by the following direct taxes, viz:

      "A tax ad valorem, under proper regulations and exceptions,
      on all lands, with their improvements, including town lots,
      with the buildings thereon."

It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 48, nays 39.

The second part of the resolution, relative to slaves, was about to be
put, when

Mr. GALLATIN said, before the question was taken on this division, he
would just mention why this species of personal property was brought
under view, whilst all other personal property was unnoticed.

It was very true, that stock upon a farm in the Northern and Eastern
States paid nearly as great a proportion of the taxes of those States as
the negroes did those of the Southern States, and therefore it might
seem somewhat wrong to introduce negroes in the one case and not cattle
in the other. The reason which induced the Committee of Ways and Means
to adopt this mode was, that negroes are confined to certain spots of
land in the Southern States, while horses and cattle extend nearly over
a whole country. And a land tax, unaccompanied with a tax on slaves,
would be very unpopular in those States, as it would throw too great a
burden upon farmers who did not hold slaves, and fall too lightly upon
those whose property chiefly consisted of slaves. There was this
difference betwixt the two species of property: A farmer in the Northern
or Eastern States would not think himself aggrieved by not paying a tax
upon his farming stock; but a farmer in the Southern States would think
himself aggrieved if his land was taxed, whilst the slaves of the
slaveholder were not taxed. It was on this account that this species of
property was introduced.

Mr. MURRAY was not struck with the observations of the gentleman last
up, so as to say he would ultimately vote for this species of tax; at
present, he should vote for a bill to be brought in; but unless he found
the bill could reconcile the principle more, and do greater justice in
the case than he at present conceived, he should then oppose it.

He said, he considered slaves in the Southern States as laborers, and
unless gentlemen could show him where laborers were taxed, he should not
think it right to vote for that part of the bill. He was decidedly in
favor of a land tax, but against the other part of the question. Mr. M.
said, he merely mentioned this that he might not hereafter be charged
with inconsistency, in case he should vote against the bill. He
repeated, unless provision be made for taxing labor in other parts of
the United States, he must vote against this part of the bill if brought
in, because the tax would operate very unequally.

Mr. HARPER said, though he was entirely opposed to the tax proposed by
the resolution, and should vote against the whole, yet he thought it
right that a tax on slaves should be introduced with a tax on land; for,
as this direct tax was to be raised by apportionment through the States,
whether the Southern States paid on slaves, or the Northern States on
land, made no difference in effect; each paid in its own way; one mode
was more convenient for the Northern, another for the Southern, and
another for the Eastern--no injury was done by this to any other State.

Mr. G. JACKSON said, he was against all species of direct taxation, but
particularly on this species; and, if a tax on land was carried, he
should bring forward a resolution to lay a tax upon all property vested
in public securities. He wished for the yeas and nays on this question.

The yeas and nays were agreed to be taken.

Mr. NICHOLAS wondered to hear the observation of his colleague. He
should vote for the question, though he and his constituents would be
affected by it; but, in the district which that gentleman represented,
there were no slaves; and it was therefore his constituents' interest to
have a tax on slaves, in order to lighten that on land.

Mr. G. JACKSON said, it was not so much on account of the interest of
himself or constituents that he opposed this tax, but he objected to it
as a capitation tax.

Mr. MOORE said, the situation of the Southern States had been truly
stated. In the Western parts, there were few slaves. He said, in the
representation to that House, the labor of the negroes had been
considered as five to three, with respect to white persons; therefore,
the ability of the State to pay was considered in the same proportion.
His colleague from the mountains (Mr. G. JACKSON) should consider that,
if the holders of slaves were not to pay a portion of the tax imposed on
the State of Virginia, it would fall very heavy upon his constituents,
and those of his colleague, where few blacks were kept.

He hoped, therefore, it would pass.

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH was aware that a tax on slaves would lighten the tax
on land in the Southern States, and therefore he did not wonder at the
Representatives from those States wishing it to take place; but, by so
apportioning the tax, would not the landholders in the Southern States
pay less than the landholders in parts of the Union where no slaves were
kept? He believed they would. A person, for instance, in New Hampshire,
holding the value of £1,000 in land, would pay a larger portion of the
tax than a holder of land to the same extent in Virginia. He believed
this would be unjust, and an objection to this mode of taxing the
Southern States, as, though the tax would fall more equally on them, it
would not be so with respect to other States.

Mr. GOODRICH said, this tax was introduced into the system for the
accommodation of that part of the Union where slaves were numerous.

A disposition to render the plan as acceptable, in every part of the
country, as it could be made, consistently with the interests of the
whole, ought to prevail. But, before a tax on slaves was adopted, its
operation on the Union, and its effects, as it respected different
districts, should be considered.

A direct tax ought to fall as equally as possible every where; that on
land and houses, with their improvements, which had been agreed to,
would be laid by a valuation seldom repeated--perhaps, once in ten or
fifteen years. The expense of its assessment and collection would be
nearly equal throughout the United States; but, with respect to a tax on
slaves, there would be required frequent enumerations--at least an
annual enumeration. This would be attended with considerable expense, to
be defrayed, not by the particular districts, for whose benefit this
species of tax was introduced, but by the United States.

There was another objection. A land tax was certain--it might, and
undoubtedly would, be made a lien on the real estate on which it was
laid. It would, be liable to little, if any, loss. Not so with a tax on
slaves. Such a tax, he apprehended, would be uncertain, exposing the
revenue to considerable defalcations. If a provision could not be made
to place the loss on the districts where it happened, by retaxing them
it would operate unequally. He imagined a retaxation for defalcation, if
it could be made, would be considered as unjust, and create discontent
among the individuals who were subjected to it; and if that could not be
done, the deficiency must fall on the Union, and would produce
uneasiness from its partial effects. He did not know how the detail
would be arranged. He had been of the number who were desirous to see
the collection-law, before they decided on the resolution before them,
so as to have possessed the whole subject. At present, he saw so many
difficulties from incorporating this species of tax into the plan, he
could not assent to it.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he did not understand the objections of the gentleman
from New Hampshire, (Mr. J. SMITH.) He did not see how he could produce
an equal value in land in every part of the Union. The tax, he said,
would be apportioned according to the number of persons, and not
according to the number of acres in any State.

If the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. GOODRICH) would rely upon his
information, he might be assured that an annual enumeration of slaves
would not cost so much as an assessment of land made once in ten years.
With respect to the tax being uncertain, he was totally mistaken. It was
the most productive tax in the Southern States. If the tax was laid
wholly upon land, it would be laid on a great part which would be
unsaleable, and when a report came to be made of the collection, there
would be found great deficiencies; but, with respect to slaves, there
would be no failure, because they were a species of property which would
always find a ready sale in the Southern market.

Mr. S. SMITH said, he had heard much on that floor with respect to
equality of taxation. It was impossible, he said, to make taxes fall
exactly equal; they will fall, in some cases, heavier than in others. He
would state a case. When a tax on carriages was under consideration,
they found the gentlemen from Connecticut voting without scruple,
because that State paid only two or three hundred dollars annually, when
Maryland paid five thousand dollars a year to that duty. There was no
equality in this; yet those gentlemen winked at the disproportion. He
hoped they would do so in the present case.

Mr. POTTER said, if this part of the resolution was agreed to, it was to
apportion a tax on the personal property of the Southern States, which,
no doubt, they would be glad of; and if gentlemen from those States
could point out any way by which the personal property of other States
could be come at, he would agree to the present proposition; but he
believed this could not be done; and, if not, he saw no reason why the
personal property of those States should be made to bear a part of the
proposed burden, whilst personal property in other States was suffered
to go free. It was a hard case, he said, that a man who possessed three
or four hundred dollars in land, should be made to pay a portion of the
direct tax, whilst men of affluence, who possessed many thousands in
public securities, or loaned on interest, should pay nothing.

The SPEAKER reminded the House that the question was very much lost
sight of; it was not whether a tax should be laid on carriages or
personal property, but whether they would agree to the report of the
Committee of the Whole, viz: "that a tax should be laid on slaves, with
certain exceptions."

Mr. HENDERSON said, he should vote against this proposition, because it
was a direct tax, as he should vote against every question of that
kind, until every source of indirect taxation was exhausted; and he
thought this was not the case at present.

Mr. CLAIBORNE said, he thought, also, that direct taxes should not be
resorted to until indirect sources were exhausted; but he believed, they
were now exhausted, and that direct taxes were the only means left to
them of raising money. As he lived in a country which was unfortunately
_cursed_ with negroes, he wished the present motion to pass, for the
sake of making the tax bear, in some degree, equally in the Southern
States; but if he thought with his colleague (Mr. JACKSON) that a tax on
slaves bore any affinity to a capitation tax, he should also oppose it;
but he had no such idea.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he would just notice what had fallen from the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. GOODRICH) which was the only thing like
argument which had been used against the present proposition. As to what
had been said about the quantum of tax falling on different States, or
what had been said by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. POTTER) with
respect to the personal property of the Eastern States, he did not see
how it applied to the present question. If the proposed tax was certain,
and the expense of collection would not be greater than would attend the
collection of the tax in other States, he did not see any objection to
it.

The gentleman from Connecticut had said, that the expense of an annual
enumeration of slaves would be great, and that it would fall upon the
United States. He would inform that gentleman and the House, that when
no assessment took place, but merely an enumeration, it would be
attended with no expense on the collection of the tax. The distinction
which he made was, when a valuation and enumeration were both necessary,
and when an enumeration alone was necessary. In the first instance, the
value of the property was to be ascertained, and the tax laid
accordingly; but where an enumeration was only wanted, (the tax per
head, according to age, &c., having been settled,) no expense would be
incurred.

Mr. G. said, he spoke from experience. In Pennsylvania there was a
certain tax on personal property, the taking an account of which did not
increase the expense. Every three years there was an assessment of
personal property, amongst which was slaves; but the enumeration was
managed in this way: the collector called twice upon persons--the first
time he gave them notice to pay, and took an account of their property,
which, consisting of few articles, and the value being already fixed, he
could tell them at the time, the amount to be paid at his next call.

As to any degree of uncertainty apprehended from this tax, that might be
removed by throwing the deficiency, if there should be any, upon the
land. He thought, therefore, the objections which had been urged against
this tax would be completely obviated.

Mr. COIT allowed, that nothing was more clear than that the manner in
which the Southern States paid their apportionment of the proposed
burden, could make no difference to the Northern and Eastern States; but
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) allowed there was some
weight in the objections, with respect to the assessment and collection
of the tax.

If he understood that gentleman, he said that the making an enumeration
of slaves would make no difference in the expense. He did not know how
this could be. If two objects were to do, viz: to value and assess the
land, and to enumerate and value the slave, it was new doctrine to him,
if these two things would not cost more than if only one had been done;
or, if this business would be done for nothing, it would be one of the
first things the United States had had done upon those terms.

Upon the collection, there would also be an additional expense and a
probability of loss; the more detail there was in the business, the
greater liability to error and loss to the United States; and in
proportion to this loss would these States pay less than others.

Mr. HARTLEY said, he should at present vote for the proposition; but
should feel himself at liberty to vote differently on the bill, if he
did not approve it. Difficulties arose in his mind as to the propriety
of taxing personal property in one State and not in another, by which
means a bounty seemed to be given on land in the Southern States to the
amount of the difference of the taxes between the land in those States,
and that in other States, upon which purchasers would naturally
calculate. This difficulty might probably be removed from his mind; and,
therefore, in order to give the whole of the business a fair chance, he
should wish the resolutions to go back to the Committee of Ways and
Means, to bring in a bill.

Mr. PAGE did suppose that gentlemen coming from States which were in the
habit of collecting direct taxes, would have endeavored to accommodate
the business to the situation and circumstances of different States, so
as to make the system the most convenient to each. He did suppose that,
whenever it should have been determined to enter upon direct taxation,
that sums would have been apportioned to each State, and that they would
have been left to themselves to have raised the money in the way which
they thought most convenient. Insuperable objections, however, it
seemed, had been found against this system, as appeared from the report
of the Secretary of the Treasury; but it was unreasonable that the
Northern States should complain that the Southern States would pay the
tax with greater facility than them. They might, he said, as well
complain against the richness of their soil, or the warmness of their
climate.

With respect to the tax falling lighter on them than on other States,
those who held slaves would find it lighter, but those who had none,
would not. But he thought it extraordinary that, whilst they were
upbraided with holding a species of property peculiar to their country,
they should also be upbraided with wishing to pay a duty upon that
property.

Mr. P. said, he did not see what difference it could make to other
States, that they raised a part of the tax required of them from slaves.
The Secretary of the Treasury had recommended this mode, the Committee
of Ways and Means had reported accordingly; and they were ready to pay a
tax for their slaves, in addition to the expense they were at for them
already; for, it should be recollected, persons holding slaves,
contribute largely to the duties collected from imposts, by the purchase
of flannels and cloth, rum, molasses, &c., necessary for their food and
clothing.

If a person living in a State where slavery did not exist, paid
something more for his land, the difference was certainly not equal to
the satisfaction he must enjoy in reflecting, that his State was free
from that evil. His land, on that account, would be worth three times as
much as land of the same quality in the Southern States. Why, then, do
gentlemen complain? The Southern States themselves might have objected
to this tax; they might have doubted the constitutionality of it;
indeed, he did doubt it, but he had agreed to it; and he believed there
was no better way of making the tax go down in those States, than by the
present measure.

For his own part, Mr. P. said, he wished he lived where there was no
slavery; and if he could find a climate he liked as well, he would
change his situation on that account.

Mr. BRENT said, it was a very extraordinary thing that gentlemen who
represented States where there were no slaves, should oppose a tax on
that species of property, and that the Southern States where slavery
existed, should be advocating that tax.

By the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, there appeared a
deficiency of revenue, and in order to supply that deficiency, they had
determined to have recourse to direct taxation; and, after the amount
which each State ought to furnish, had been ascertained, he thought it
should have been left to the different States to have raised the money
from such funds as they judged best, provided they had been secure.
This, he thought, would only have been liberal and proper. It had,
however, been determined otherwise; but, from a knowledge that, by
introducing land and slaves together, as objects of taxation, the tax
would be more equally levied in the Southern States, if that plan had
been adopted. And, surely, he said, it could have given no satisfaction
to any other State, that, by laying a tax on land only, it should have
operated in a very oppressive manner in some parts of the Southern
States, and scarcely have been felt at all in other parts of those
States; and yet, this would appear to be the opinion of the gentleman
from New Hampshire; for, he said, if this law passed, a person
possessing landed property in New Hampshire, of the value of £1,000,
would pay more than a landholder to that amount in the Southern States.
And was this, he asked, a subject of regret? If the State of Virginia
paid the amount required of her in a manner which bore most equally upon
the whole of her citizens, ought that to displease the citizens of other
States? He thought not. He was of opinion, that it would be a desirable
thing that the tax should be found to fall equally on the citizens of
every State.

Another objection, produced by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
GOODRICH) was that a tax on this species of property would not be so
secure as a tax on land. If that gentleman had been acquainted with the
situation of the Southern States, he would have known that slaves formed
the most certain fund of those States; for, whilst their wide and
extensive waste lands would not command any price, slaves were always
ready sale. Hence it arose, that the States were not able to raise a tax
on land, whilst a tax on slaves had never failed to be productive.

With respect to the inconvenience or expense attending a tax on slaves,
in Virginia, he said, no expense would be necessary; because it was the
custom of that State to take annually, a list of their slaves, which was
regularly recorded in the archives of the State. If gentlemen were,
therefore, so economical that they would not expend a few of the public
pence to get a list of this property, let them recur to the document he
had mentioned, which might be done without expense.

To those who know the situation of the Southern States, the remarks made
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) must have been
irresistibly impressive. Almost the whole of the lower part of the
country possessed property of this kind, whilst the upper parts had
scarcely any. If a tax was, therefore, imposed upon land only, the upper
part of the country would be extremely aggravated, and would murmur, and
they would murmur with justice.

Gentlemen from the Eastern States called upon the Representatives of the
Southern States to point out a mode by which they might come at the
personal property of their States. But, he would ask them, if,
independent of land with its improvements, they possessed any other
species of property which could not be eluded? He believed they could
not point it out; why, then, call upon gentlemen from the Southern
States to do, what they, who certainly knew best their own resources,
were unable to do?

The gentlemen from the Southern States, he said, had discovered those
objects which they thought best able to bear the burden; and if the
Representatives of the other States were not satisfied with the tax on
land, let them come forward and say what other property they have
equally secure, upon which a tax may be laid.

It was a phenomenon, he would again say, that the Representatives of
States where slavery existed, should be contending for a tax upon
slaves, and that members from States where slavery was not tolerated,
were opposing it. He could not help believing that the real object of
gentlemen had not been avowed. It was something hidden and unseen.[8]

Mr. KITTERA said, that the opposers of this part of the resolution were
the opposers of a direct tax altogether. It was observable that those
upon whom the tax would fall, did not complain. It was extraordinary
that the complaints should come from another quarter. As to the
objections of his colleague (Mr. HARTLEY) that part of the tax being
laid on slaves in the Southern States, would affect the value of land,
it would make no difference whether the tax was on land or slaves, as it
affected land, its operation would be the same. It was therefore no
solid objection against the resolution.

On the question, that the House do agree to the last part of the said
resolution, in the words following, to wit: "A tax on slaves, with
certain exceptions;" it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 68, nays
23, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount,
      Theophilus Bradbury, Richard Brent, Daniel Buck, Samuel J.
      Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac Coles,
      William Cooper, William Craik, James Davenport, George
      Dent, George Ege, William Findlay, Abiel Foster, Jesse
      Franklin, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Nicholas
      Gilman, Henry Glenn, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg,
      William B. Grove, Wade Hampton, George Hancock, Robert
      Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, John
      Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, William Hindman, James
      Holland, Andrew Jackson, John Wilkes Kittera, Matthew
      Locke, Samuel Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James
      Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Frederick A.
      Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, John
      Patton, Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, Samuel Sewall,
      Samuel Sitgreaves, Israel Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith,
      William Smith, Richard Sprigg, Jr., William Strudwick, John
      Swanwick, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham
      Venable, Peleg Wadsworth, John Williams, and Richard Winn.

      NAYS.--Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Joshua Coit, Samuel W.
      Dana, Henry Dearborn, Dwight Foster, Nathaniel Freeman,
      Jr., Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Thomas Henderson,
      George Jackson, William Lyman, Francis Malbone, Elisha R.
      Potter, John Read, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith,
      Nathaniel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Richard
      Thomas, Mark Thompson, and Joseph B. Varnum.

And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the
resolution, as reported by the Committee of the whole House, it was
resolved in the affirmative--yeas 49, nays 39.

_Ordered_, That the Committee of Ways and Means do prepare and bring in
a bill or bills, pursuant to the said resolution.


MONDAY, January 23.

THOMPSON J. SKINNER, from Massachusetts, in place of THEODORE SEDGWICK,
appointed a Senator of the United States, appeared, produced his
credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.


FRIDAY, January 27.

_Appropriations for 1797._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
subject of appropriations for the year 1797, when the article which
relates to the contingent expenses of the two branches of the
Legislature, amounting to twelve thousand dollars, being read,

Mr. BALDWIN said, he had often before made the remark, (and he thought
it not unseasonable now to repeat it,) that the House was too apt to be
merely formal and superficial in passing on the general estimate for the
year. He was sorry to observe that this item had within this year or two
been considerably increased; he believed the price of wood, stationery,
and other articles purchased for the session, was now much the same as
in 1795, though the printer's bill might be higher; yet, as the session
would be but three months, he thought the sum allowed for 1795 would be
sufficient. He had always thought this charge for the contingencies of
the two Houses, one of the strongest instances of that kind of loose
economy which it has been complained, and perhaps with too much justice,
pervades all the operations of the Federal Government--we have often
been reminded that, to make an expedition into the woods to an Indian
town, or to build a frigate, or to coin one hundred tons of copper,
costs us a great deal more than it ever did any other Government in this
country. If this is a strong instance of that style of economy, let us
begin the reformation with ourselves, and not be so prodigal this year
in our contingent expenses; our circumstances call on us for greater
attention to economy. He was sensible the place for correcting these
evils was ordinarily on passing the law authorizing the expense, and not
on the appropriation for the payment of it; but this item, and many
others, depended on no law--changing the sum in the estimate will
control the expense. If any one will take the trouble of looking over
the vouchers on which these accounts have been settled for past years,
he will see that there is room for more economy. One branch of the
Legislature consists of about thirty members--four thousand dollars is
a great sum for the purchase of their wood, quills, and paper, and for
furnishing them with copies of business under consideration. Is it
possible that twelve thousand dollars can be necessary for the two
Houses? The whole yearly expenses of some of the State Governments do
not amount to a much greater sum--he hoped this would be struck out, and
the sum which was allowed for 1795, and some preceding years, be
inserted.

Mr. SMITH presumed the estimate was founded upon information received
from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of that House. He did not
conceive it would make any difference in the expenditure, whether a
larger or smaller sum be appropriated; as he did not suppose the Senate
or that House would print the less because a less sum was appropriated.
The gentleman, he said, might, by his speech, give an idea to the
public, that this would be a saving of so much money; but it would, in
reality, make no difference.

After a few observations from other members, the question was put and
negatived--37 to 30.

The committee then rose, and had leave to sit again. And the House
adjourned till Monday.


MONDAY, January 30.

GEORGE LEONARD, from Massachusetts, appeared, and took his seat.

_Manumitted Slaves._

      [Mr. SWANWICK presented the petition of Jacob Nicholson and
      Jupiter Nicholson, Job Albertson and Thomas Pritchet, dated
      at Philadelphia, stating that they had been the slaves of
      persons in Perquimans County, North Carolina, who had
      manumitted them, and whose surname they took--that
      afterwards they had been seized by other persons and sold
      into slavery under a law of the State--that to escape from
      this bondage they had fled to Philadelphia, where they had
      been seized under the fugitive slave act: and pray relief
      from Congress.]

The petition being read--

Mr. SWANWICK said, he hoped it would be referred to a select committee.

Mr. BLOUNT hoped it would not even be received by the House. Agreeably
to a law of the State of North Carolina, he said they were slaves, and
could, of course, be seized as such.

Mr. THATCHER thought the petition ought to be referred to the Committee
on the Fugitive Law. He conceived the gentleman much mistaken in
asserting these petitioners to be absolute slaves. They state that they
were slaves, but that their masters manumitted them, and that their
manumissions were sanctioned by a law of that State, but that a
subsequent law of the same State, subjected them to slavery; and if even
there was a law that allowed them to be taken and sold into slavery
again, he could not see any propriety in refusing their petition in
that House--THEY CERTAINLY (said Mr. T.) ARE FREE PEOPLE. It appeared
they were taken under the fugitive act, which he thought ought not to
affect them; they now came and prayed the House so to model that
fugitive act, as to prevent its affecting persons of their description.
He therefore saw great propriety in referring their petition to the
committee appointed to amend that act in another part; they could as
well consider its relation to the present case. He could not see how
there would be a propriety in rejecting their petition; they had an
undoubted right to petition the House, and to be heard.

Mr. SWANWICK was surprised at the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
BLOUNT) desiring to reject this petition; he could not have thought, nor
could he indulge the suspicion now, that the gentleman was so far from
acknowledging the rights of man, as to prevent any class of men from
petitioning. If men were aggrieved and conceive they have claim to
attention, petitioning was their sacred right, and that right should
never suffer innovation; whether the House ought to grant, was another
question. The subject of their petition had a claim to the attention of
the House. They state they were freed from slavery, but that they were
much injured under a law of the United States. If a law was ever made
that bore hard on any class of people, Mr. S. hoped that the door would
never be shut to their complaints. If the circumstance respecting these
people was as they stated, their case was very hard. He animadverted on
the atrocity of that reward of ten dollars offered for one of them if
taken alive, but that fifty should be given if found dead, and no
questions asked. Was not this, he said, encouragement to put a period to
that man's existence? Horrid reward! Could gentlemen hear it and not
shudder?

Mr. BLOUNT said, the gentleman last up was mistaken in calling the
petitioners free men; the laws of North Carolina, as he observed before,
did not suffer individuals to emancipate their slaves, and he should
wish to know what evidence there was to prove these men free, and except
that was proved, the House had no right to attend to the petition.

Mr. SITGREAVES, in answer to the gentleman last up, said he would
reverse his question, and ask what evidence he had to prove that these
men are not freemen; can he prove they are slaves? They have stated that
a law has been made in North Carolina with a view to affect their case,
and bring them again into a worse slavery than before; they want to know
whether they cannot obtain relief by their application to the Government
of the United States. Under these circumstances, Mr. S. wished to know
why their petitions should not be taken into consideration? Was there
any thing in these men, he asked, that should prevent every kind of
assistance being bestowed on them? Had they not an equal right to be
heard with other petitioners? He hoped the House would not only give
them a hearing, but afford them all the consolation of which their
unfortunate case was susceptible. If the House were obliged, through a
want of power to extend to the case, to object compliance with the
prayers, yet, he hoped it would be done with all due tenderness; before
hearing them, he thought it would be exceedingly unjust to decide. These
people may produce documents sufficient to obtain favorable attention;
therefore, it was impossible before they were heard to conceive whether
the House could constitutionally grant relief or not. He could see no
impropriety in referring it; the object of referring a case, was to
inquire into facts; thus, the committee prepared the way for discussion
in the House; and why the House should refuse to deliberate and discuss
this case, he knew not.

Mr. HEATH was clearly convinced these people were slaves, and therefore
hoped their petition would lie on the table. He would remind the
gentleman that, if they undertook this business, they would soon have
petitions enough of the same kind, and public business would be thereby
prevented. It appeared to him to be more within the jurisdiction of the
Legislature of that State; indeed, the United States had nothing to do
with it.

Mr. MADISON said, he should be sorry to reject any petition whatever, in
which it became the business of the House to attend; but he thought this
case had no claim on their attention. Yet, if it did not come within the
purview of the Legislative body, he thought, it might be suffered to lie
on the table. He thought it a judicial case, and could obtain its due in
a Court of Appeal in that State. If they are free by the laws of North
Carolina, they ought to apply to those laws, and have their privilege
established. If they are slaves, the constitution gives them no hope of
being heard here. A law has been passed to prevent the owners of those
slaves emancipating them; it is therefore impossible that any relief can
be granted. The petitioners are under the laws of North Carolina, and
those laws cannot be the interpreters of the laws of the United States.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he was not prepared to deny that this petition is
in the situation the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) states; nor
was he prepared to prove that it came under the power of the General
Government; but he could see no kind of reason why it should not be sent
to a committee who should examine the case and report whether it
required Legislative interference, or whether it was a subject of
judicial authority in the country whence the petitioners came. Many
petitions, he said, were sent to the House, who referred them for
investigation to a committee, and many had been reported as being under
judicial power only, and as such been rejected here. If this underwent
the same order, and should be found to be of a judicial nature, the
committee would report so, and the House would honorably refuse it. This
he thought the only just method.

Mr. RUTHERFORD concurred with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that this
memorial ought to be referred to a committee who would report whether
these people had been emancipated, according to a law of the State of
North Carolina, or not. The circumstances attending this case, he said,
demanded a just and full investigation, and if a law did exist either to
emancipate, or send these poor people into slavery, the House would then
know. He doubted not, every thing just and proper would be done, but he
hoped every due respect would be paid to the petition. In short, he was
assured every member in the House would wish to act consistently. This
case, from the great hardships represented in the petition, applied
closely to the nicest feelings of the heart, and he hoped humanity would
dictate a just decision.

Mr. GILBERT hoped the petition would be referred to the committee
proposed; he thought it laid claim to the humanity of the House. He
thought every just satisfaction should be given, and attention paid, to
every class of persons who appeal for decision to the House.

Mr. W. SMITH said, the practice of a former time, in a similar case,
was, that the petition was sealed up and sent back to the petitioners,
not being allowed even to remain on the files of the office. This
method, he said, ought to be pursued with respect to the present
petition. It was not a matter that claimed the attention of the
Legislature of the United States. He thought it of such an improper
nature, as to be surprised any gentleman would present a petition of the
kind. These men are slaves, and, he thought, not entitled to attention
from that body; to encourage slaves to petition the House would have a
tendency to invite continual applications. Indeed it would tend to
spread an alarm throughout the Southern States; it would act as an
"entering-wedge," whose consequences could not be foreseen. This is a
kind of property on which the House has no power to legislate. He hoped
it would not be committed at all; it was not a proper subject for
Legislative attention. He was not of the opinion of some gentlemen, that
the House were bound to sit on every question recommended to their
notice. He thought particular attention ought to be paid to the lateness
of the session; if this subject were to be considered, too much time of
the House would be devoured which was much wanted on important business.

Mr. THATCHER said, he was in favor of referring this petition. He could
see no reason which had been adduced to prove the impropriety of
receiving a petition from these people. The gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. BLOUNT) is of the opinion that these people being slaves,
the House ought not to pay attention to their prayer. This, he said, was
quite new language--a system of conduct which he never saw the House
practise, and hoped he never should. That the House should not receive a
petition without an evidence to prove it was from a free man. This was a
language which opposed the constitutional freedom of every State where
the Declaration of Rights had been made; they all declare that every man
is born equally free, and that each has an equal right to petition if
aggrieved--this doctrine he never heard objected to.

The gentlemen from Virginia (Mr. MADISON and Mr. HEATH) had said, it was
a Judicial and not a Legislative question; they say the petition proves
it, and that it ought not to be attended to. Mr. T. said, he saw no
proof whatever of the impropriety of the House receiving it. There might
be some Judicial question growing out of the case; but that was no
reason, because it might possibly undergo a Judicial course, that the
General Government were not to be petitioned. The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. SMITH) had said, "that this was a kind of property on
which the House could not legislate;" but he would answer, this was a
kind of property on which they were bound to legislate. The fugitive act
could prove this authority; if petitions were not to be received they
would have to legislate in the dark. It appeared plainly that these men
were manumitted by their masters; and because a number of men who called
themselves legislators should, after they had the actual enjoyment of
their liberty, come forward and say that these men should not remain at
liberty, and actually authorize their recaptivity, he thought it
exceedingly unjust to deprive them of the right of petitioning to have
their injuries redressed. These were a set of men on whom the fugitive
law had no power, and he thought they claimed protection under the power
of that House, which always ought to lean towards freedom. Though they
could not give freedom to slaves, yet he hoped gentlemen would never
refuse to lend their aid to secure freemen in their rights against
tyrannical imposition.

Mr. CHRISTIE thought no part of the fugitive act operated against
freedom. He thought no good could be derived from sending the petition
to a committee; they could not prove whether they were slaves or not. He
was much surprised any gentleman in the House should present such a
petition. Mr. C. said, he was of the same opinion with the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) that the petition ought to be sent back
again. He hoped the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SWANWICK) would
never hand such another petition into the House.

Mr. HOLLAND said, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. THATCHER) said,
"the House ought to lean towards freedom." Did he mean to set all slaves
at liberty, or receive petitions from all? Sure he was, that if this was
received, it would not be long before the table would be filled with
similar complaints, and the House might sit for no other purpose than to
hear them. It was a Judicial question, and the House ought not to
pretend to determine the point; why, then, should they take up time upon
it? To put an end to it he hoped, it would be ordered to lie on the
table.

Mr. MACON said, he had hearkened very closely to the observations of
gentlemen on the subject, and could see no reason to alter his desire
that it would not be committed. No man, he said, wished to encourage
petitions more than himself, and no man had considered this subject
more. These men could not receive any aid from the General Government;
but by application to the State, justice would be done them. Trials of
this kind had very frequently been brought on in all the different
courts of that State, and had very often ended in the freedom of slaves;
the appeal was fair, and justice was done. Mr. M. thought it a very
delicate subject for the General Government to act on; he hoped it would
not be committed; but he should not be sorry if the proposition of a
gentleman (Mr. SMITH) was to take place, that it was to be sent back
again.

Mr. W. SMITH observed, that a gentleman (Mr. THATCHER) had uttered a
wish to draw these people from their state of slavery to liberty. Mr. S.
did not think they were sent there to take up the subject of
emancipation. When subjects of this kind are brought up in the House
they ought to be deprecated as dangerous. They tended to produce very
uncomfortable circumstances.

Mr. VARNUM said, the petitioners had received injury under a law of the
United States, (the fugitive act) and not merely a law of North
Carolina, and therefore, he thought, they had an undoubted right to the
attention of the General Government if that act bore hard on them. They
stated themselves to be freemen, and he did not see any opposition of
force to convince the House they were not; surely it could not be said
that color alone should designate them as slaves. If these people had
been free, and yet were taken up under a law of the United States, and
put into prison, then it appeared plainly the duty of the House to
inquire whether that act had such an unjust tendency, and if it had,
proper amendments should be made to it to prevent the like consequences
in future. It required nothing more under that act than that the person
suspected should be brought before a single magistrate, and evidence
given that he is a slave, which evidence the magistrate could not know
if distant from the State; the person may be a freeman, for it would not
be easy to know whether the evidence was good, at a distance from the
State; the poor man is then sent to his State in slavery. Mr. V. hoped
the House would take all possible care that freemen should not be made
slaves; to be deprived of liberty was more important than to be deprived
of property. He could not think why gentlemen should be against having
the fact examined; if it appears that they are slaves, the petition will
of course be dismissed, but if it should appear they are free, and
receive injury under the fugitive act, the United States ought to amend
it, so that justice should be done.

Mr. BLOUNT said, admitting those persons who had been taken up were
sent back to North Carolina, they would then have permission to apply to
any of the courts in the State for a fair trial of their plea; there are
very few courts in which some negroes have not tried this cause, and
obtained their liberty. He agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts,
on the freedom of these men to procure their rights; it did not appear
to him that they were free; true they had been set free, but that
manumission was from their masters, who had not a right to set them free
without permission of the Legislature.

Mr. KITCHELL could not see what objection could obtain to prevent these
people being heard. The question was not now, whether they are or are
not slaves, but it is on a law of the United States. They assert that
this law does act injuriously to them; the question is, therefore,
whether a committee shall be appointed to inquire on the improper force
of this law on the case of these men; if they are freemen, he said, they
ought not to be sent back from the most distant part of the United
States to North Carolina, to have justice done them, but they ought to
receive it from the General Government who made the law they complain
of.

Mr. K. said, he had not examined the force of the law on the subject,
and was not prepared to decide; there could be no evil in referring it
for examination; when the committee would report their opinion of the
subject and gentlemen be prepared to act on it.

On the question for receiving the petition being put, it was
negatived--ayes 33, noes 50.[9]


TUESDAY, February 7.

THOMAS SPRIGG, from Maryland, appeared, and took his seat.

_Increase of Salaries._

A bill was also received from the Senate for increasing the compensation
of the members of the Legislature and certain officers of Government;
which was read, and, on motion that it be read a second time, it was
carried, 33 to 30. It was accordingly read a second time.

The bill contemplates an advance of $5,000 to the present salary of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and $2,000 to the VICE PRESIDENT, to
commence on the 4th of March next, and continue for four years; and that
the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, Attorney
General, Postmaster General, Assistant Postmaster General, Comptroller
of the Treasury, Auditor, Register, Commissioner of the Revenue,
Accountant of the War Department, the Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk
of the House of Representatives, and the principal clerks employed by
them, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives, the
Door-keepers and Assistant Door-keepers of both Houses, have an advance
of 25 per cent. upon their present compensation.

Mr. PARKER moved that the further consideration of this bill be
postponed till the first Monday in December next. He said they had
lately had the subject of augmenting the salaries of all the officers
here mentioned, except the PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT and themselves,
under consideration; and as they had resolved to refuse an advance to
others, he trusted they should also refuse it to themselves. He thought
the present an improper time to go into the subject.

Mr. HARTLEY wished the gentleman would consent to some day next week. He
could not say he was ready to agree to the whole of the advances
proposed, but he wished the subject to be taken into consideration, and
perhaps by the time he had mentioned they might have some further
information on the subject of our finances.

Mr. MACON said, the most regular way for the gentleman from Virginia to
obtain his object, would be to move to have the bill committed to a
Committee of the Whole, and made the order of the day for the 4th of
March.

Mr. PARKER made that motion.

Mr. HARTLEY hoped this motion would not be agreed to, as it was a sort
of manoeuvre to get rid of the subject, which he did not approve. He
would either have the bill negatived at once, made the order of some day
in the present session, or postponed till the next.

Mr. AMES said gentlemen had no doubt a right to govern their own votes
according to their own notions of propriety. No man had a right to
prescribe to another. His conscience was no rule to any other man. But
he thought he was authorized to say, they neither had nor claimed a
right to do a right thing in a wrong way. To agree to the motion
proposed, would be an insincere way of putting a negative upon the bill.
He trusted gentlemen who wished this would do it in a more direct way.
The compensation of the PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT could not be
augmented, he said, after they had entered upon their office; and to say
they would take up the subject for consideration at a time when their
powers would not exist, was an evasive manner, which he approved not. It
was an easy thing for gentlemen to say _no_ on the question, without
taking this circuitous way of putting an end to the subject.

Mr. VENABLE thought the view of his colleague would be answered as well
by a postponement to the 3d of March as to the 4th, and it would be more
orderly. Nor did he think this way of disposing of the business called
for the censure which the gentleman from Massachusetts had thrown upon
it. It was a question upon which that House had already decided by a
considerable majority. No new light had been thrown upon the subject,
and he thought it by no means disrespectful to postpone it. It was well
known that the effect of this motion would be a postponement for the
present session. This was what he wished; and if his colleague would
consent to alter his motion to the 3d of March, he should not hesitate
to vote for it.

Mr. PARKER had no objection to the motion standing for the 3d of March,
though he did not consider the motions for the first Monday in December
or the 4th of March as unparliamentary. He thought the salaries of the
PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT high enough. The salaries of some of their
public officers might at present be somewhat too low, but the time would
soon come when the price of living would become lower, and then they
would be fully adequate; and therefore he did not wish to see them
advanced at present.

Mr. BUCK was opposed to putting off the question till the time
contemplated by the present motion. To get rid of the subject in such a
way, would be descending from that state of independence which they
ought to preserve, and would have the appearance of a slight cast upon
another branch of Government. If they were prepared to meet the
question, they might as well meet it now as then. To agree to the motion
proposed, would show a degree of cowardice, and effectually put it out
of their power to consider and determine upon the subject. The Senate,
he said, had found sufficient reason to originate this bill, and he
thought, if it were only out of complaisance to them, the subject should
not be treated in the way proposed. It was said that this subject had
already been decided, but he did not think so. There had been no general
proposition for augmenting compensation. They had had the subject under
view partially, but he knew there were some members (he knew of one at
least) who voted against any partial advance, because they thought it
should be general. This was his motive. He thought all the officers of
Government were upon an equal footing, and therefore he voted against
advancing the salary of one and not of another--not because he thought
they were already sufficiently compensated; he did not think they were.
He wished, therefore, the subject for a general augmentation to come
under discussion. If he should be convinced an advance was improper, he
should give it up, and should be against putting the subject off to a
time when it could not be considered.

Mr. HARTLEY again urged the propriety of postponing for a shorter
period: he mentioned the 17th instant.

Mr. MACON said he was opposed to the bill _in toto_, and he considered
the motion of the gentleman from Virginia as meant to try the question.
He wished it to stand for the 4th of March, as at first proposed,
because, if it stood for the 3d, the subject might be called up and
acted upon on the last day of the session. He should therefore renew the
4th of March, because, if there were a majority who wished the bill to
be rejected, it was desirable that as little time as possible should be
lost upon the subject.

The question for postponing till the 4th of March was put and negatived,
46 to 45.

Mr. PARKER then moved to have it postponed till the 3d of March.

Mr. HENDERSON thought it more proper to postpone till the 3d than till
the 4th. He was ready, he said, to meet the question, either in a direct
or indirect way. He had made a calculation, and found that the advances
proposed would amount to from $100,000 to $110,000. Mr. H. believed our
finances were not in a state to admit of this addition to our expenses;
besides, he trusted every necessary of life would soon be reduced in
price, so as to render any advance of salary to our officers
unnecessary.

The question was put and negatived, 57 to 32.

On motion of Mr. HARTLEY, Friday week was proposed and negatived, there
being only 35 votes for it.

Mr. GALLATIN moved that the subject should be made the order for this
day. He said he had voted for postponing it till the 4th of March, with
a view of getting rid of it; but since it must be considered, he wished
it to be disposed of as soon as possible.

Mr. SITGREAVES proposed that it be made the order of the day for Monday.

The sense of the House was first taken for Monday and negatived, there
being only 41 votes for it. It was then put for this day and carried,
there being 58 votes for it.


WEDNESDAY, February 8.

_Election of President._

The SPEAKER informed the House that the hour was come at which they had
appointed to meet the Senate, for the purpose of counting the votes for,
and declaring the election of a PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, and that the Clerk would inform the Senate they were
ready to receive them.

The Clerk accordingly waited upon the Senate, and the PRESIDENT and
members of the Senate soon after entered and took their seats, the
PRESIDENT on the right hand of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and the members of the Senate on the same side of the
Chamber; when the President of the Senate (Mr. ADAMS) thus addressed the
two Houses:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of
      Representatives_:

      The purpose for which we are assembled is expressed in the
      following resolutions. [Mr. ADAMS here read the resolutions
      which had been adopted by the two Houses relative to the
      subject.] I have received packets containing the
      certificates of the votes of the Electors for a President
      and Vice President of the United States from all the
      sixteen States of the Union: I have also received
      duplicates of the returns by post from fifteen of the
      States. No duplicate from the State of Kentucky is yet come
      to hand.

      It has been the practice heretofore, on similar occasions,
      to begin with the returns from the State at one end of the
      United States, and to proceed to the other; I shall
      therefore do the same at this time.

Mr. ADAMS then took up the packet from the State of Tennessee, and after
having read the superscription, broke the seal, and read the certificate
of the election of the Electors. He then gave it to the Clerk of the
Senate, requesting him to read the report of the Electors, which he
accordingly did. All the papers were then handed to the tellers, viz:
Mr. SEDGWICK, on the part of the Senate, and Messrs. SITGREAVES and
PARKER on the part of the House of Representatives; and when they had
noted the contents, the President of the Senate proceeded with the other
States, in the following order:

FOR JOHN ADAMS.
North Carolina,    1
Virginia,          1
Maryland,          7
Delaware,          3
Pennsylvania,      1
New Jersey,        7
New York,         12
Connecticut,       9
Rhode Island,      4
Massachusetts,    16
Vermont,           4
New Hampshire,     6
                  --
                  71

FOR THOMAS JEFFERSON.
Tennessee,         3
Kentucky,          4
Georgia,           4
South Carolina,    8
North Carolina,   11
Virginia,         20
Maryland,          4
Pennsylvania,     14
                  --
                  68

FOR GEORGE WASHINGTON.
North Carolina,    1
Virginia,          1
                  --
                   2

FOR THOMAS PINCKNEY.
South Carolina,    8
North Carolina,    1
Virginia,          1
Maryland,          4
Delaware,          3
Pennsylvania,      2
New Jersey,        7
New York,         12
Connecticut,       4
Massachusetts,    13
Vermont,           4
                  --
                  59

FOR AARON BURR.
Tennessee,         3
Kentucky,          4
North Carolina,    6
Virginia,          1
Maryland,          3
Pennsylvania,     13
                  --
                  30

FOR SAMUEL ADAMS.
Virginia,         15

FOR OLIVER ELLSWORTH.
Rhode Island,      4
Massachusetts,     1
New Hampshire,     6
                  --
                  11

FOR SAMUEL JOHNSTON.
Massachusetts,     2

FOR JAMES IREDELL.
North Carolina,    3

FOR JOHN JAY.
Connecticut,       5

FOR GEORGE CLINTON.
Georgia,           4
Virginia,          3
                  --
                   7

FOR CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY.
North Carolina,    1

FOR JOHN HENRY.
Maryland,          2

All the returns having been gone through, Mr. SEDGWICK reported that,
according to order, the tellers appointed by the two Houses had
performed the business assigned them, and reported the result to be as
above stated.

The PRESIDENT of the Senate then thus addressed the two Houses:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of
      Representatives_:

      By the report which has been made to me by the tellers
      appointed by the two Houses to examine the votes, there are
      71 votes for John Adams, 68 for Thomas Jefferson, 59 for
      Thomas Pinckney, 30 for Aaron Burr, 15 for Samuel Adams, 11
      for Oliver Ellsworth, 7 for George Clinton, 5 for John Jay,
      3 for James Iredell, 2 for George Washington, 2 for John
      Henry, 2 for Samuel Johnston, and 1 for Charles C.
      Pinckney. The whole number of votes are 138; 70 votes,
      therefore, make a majority; so that the person who has 71
      votes, which is the highest number, is elected President,
      and the person who has 68 votes, which is the next highest
      number, is elected Vice President.

The PRESIDENT of the Senate then sat down for a moment, and rising
again, thus addressed the two Houses:

      In obedience to the Constitution and law of the United
      States, and to the commands of both Houses of Congress,
      expressed in their resolution passed in the present
      session, I declare that

      JOHN ADAMS is elected President of the United States, for
      four years, to commence with the fourth day of March next;
      and that

      THOMAS JEFFERSON is elected Vice President of the United
      States, for four years, to commence with the fourth day of
      March next. And may the Sovereign of the Universe, the
      ordainer of civil government on earth, for the preservation
      of liberty, justice, and peace, among men, enable both to
      discharge the duties of these offices conformably to the
      Constitution of the United States, with conscientious
      diligence, punctuality, and perseverance.

The PRESIDENT and members of the Senate then retired, and the House came
to order; when Mr. SITGREAVES made a report on the business, which was
read and ordered to be entered on the journals.


THURSDAY, February 9.

_Election of President._

Mr. SITGREAVES, from the joint committee appointed to confer with a
committee of the Senate on the subject of the election of a PRESIDENT
and VICE PRESIDENT, made a further report, viz: that they had agreed
with the committee of the Senate to recommend to the House of
Representatives the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That the Clerk of this House be directed to
      give, by letter, to the Vice President elect, a
      notification of his election."

This resolution was agreed to; but some time afterwards, Mr. PARKER (one
of the committee) wished it to be rescinded, as he understood, though
the committee from the Senate had concurred in this mode of notifying
the VICE PRESIDENT of his election, the Senate would not agree to it,
but wished to follow the mode adopted on a former occasion, viz: a
message was sent from the House of Representatives to the Senate,
directing that the persons elected should be notified in such a manner
as they should direct. He wished, therefore, to prevent delay, the
resolution might be rescinded and a different one agreed to. This motion
occasioned a good deal of conversation. It was observed by the SPEAKER
that the resolution was already before the Senate, (where it seemed it
was not intended to be sent, as it was a distinct resolution of that
House, a similar one to which was proposed for the adoption of the
Senate by the joint committee.) It was at length, however, agreed to be
rescinded. Immediately after which a message was received from the
Senate, informing the House that they had disagreed to the resolution,
and appointed a committee of conference. The House accordingly took up
the message, and also agreed to appoint a committee of conference.

_Compensation to Public Officers._

Mr. PARKER then renewed his motion, and the House resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the bill respecting compensations, Mr.
MUHLENBERG in the chair; when

Mr. PARKER moved to strike out the first clause. He thought it necessary
to make some additional allowance to the PRESIDENT, but he would do it
in a different way from that proposed. When the present PRESIDENT came
into office, he said, he had a quantity of furniture presented him,
which might now be nearly worn out, and be of little value. It might be
proper, therefore, to purchase new furniture for the gentleman just
elected. It would be also during the period of the present Presidency
that Government would remove to the Federal City, which would be
attended with a good deal of expense to the PRESIDENT. He should wish,
therefore, that a provision should be made for defraying that expense,
and also for the purchasing of new furniture, but he should be opposed
to the making of any addition to the salary at present.

Mr. HARTLEY spoke in favor of retaining the clause.

Mr. R. SPRIGG said he should vote against the proposed advance of
salary, and could not consent to any other mode of augmenting the
present compensation allowed to the PRESIDENT. He could by no means
agree to the plan proposed by the gentleman from Virginia; for, if they
were to renew the furniture of the PRESIDENT every four or eight years,
it would be found a pretty expensive business. That gentleman had also
mentioned the removal of the Government, as taking place during the next
Presidency; but, he said, the new election would happen about the time
of removing the Government, and provision for paying that expense might
be made at that time. He thought the salaries were already sufficiently
high, and that it would be with difficulty that money was found to pay
the present expenses of Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS was of opinion, on the score of economy, that it would be
better to advance the compensation of the PRESIDENT in the way proposed
by the present bill, and let him purchase his own furniture, than to
purchase new furniture, which, perhaps, when the Government was removed,
would not be suitable for his house in the Federal City. Mr. W. said he
was one of the committee on the subject of compensation, and they
endeavored to ascertain whether the twenty-five thousand dollars allowed
to the PRESIDENT were an adequate compensation. It was generally
believed it was not. They ought, he said, to enable their First
Magistrate to live in a style becoming his situation. All their
Executive officers should receive such salaries as would enable them to
see company agreeably to their rank, otherwise the respectability
attached to those offices would suffer greatly in the public opinion. He
hoped, therefore, the section would not be struck out.

Mr. BUCK said, as the motion now made was to try the principle, it would
be well to go into an examination of the subject. He said he had never
been a champion for raising salaries, or a stickler for lowering them;
but, as the subject was brought before them, he should cheerfully
declare his sentiments upon it. He conceived the true question to be,
whether it was right and just that they should augment the salaries of
the officers of Government and the members of the Legislature, or
whether the present compensations were just and adequate to the
sacrifices which they made in undertaking the business of Government.
Because he did not believe, with some other gentlemen, that they were to
estimate the compensations of their officers in proportion as money was
scarce or plentiful in the Treasury, nor did he believe there was a
real distress in Government for want of money; but their difficulties
arose from a difference of opinion in that House on the mode of raising
money. He believed there were persons who thought Government squandered
away the public money; that its officers divided the loaves and fishes
amongst them; and that the only way in which this profusion of expense
could be checked was by pursuing a system of direct taxation, which
would make the people feel the amount which they contributed to the
support of Government. He should not undertake to examine this
principle, nor deny that such facts might exist. It would be enough to
look at existing circumstances in our country, and see how far they
would apply. Our Government, he said, rested on public sentiment for
support, and must always be regulated by it. He was willing, he said, to
go all lengths with gentlemen in adopting a system of taxation
calculated to raise a permanent revenue. Nor was he apprehensive for the
result, when dictated by reason and justice.

Contemptible must be that state of Government, said Mr. B., where its
public officers are starved for want of a proper spirit in the people to
support them. Is America, said he, arrived at this melancholy state? If
she were, God forbid she should ever experience another revolution! Is
this all our boasted acquisition, in return for the struggle we have
made for our country? No; he denied the fact. America was not reduced to
that state which will not allow her to pay the expenses of her
Government, nor is she unwilling to pay them; neither is public
sentiment so debased as not to approve of any measure which shall be
taken to secure a handsome maintenance for our officers. There was no
occasion for hypocrisy in the business; he was willing to state the
whole truth plainly to his constituents. He should not think of telling
them they were giving too high salaries for their officers, when he
knew, that, owing to their insufficiency, they were diminishing their
own private fortunes. Nor did he wish to intrench on his own property in
serving the public; he believed there was no occasion for this. He
should, therefore, speak plainly to them.

Mr. B. said, he would inquire whether the present salaries were a
reasonable and just compensation for the services performed? In respect
to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, it was said that he had already a
large salary. He knew that twenty-five thousand dollars had a great
sound in the ears of many, but he trusted the people of the United
States not only possessed just views of Government, but that they also
possessed virtue to support the just measures of Government, and would
not consent that their Executive officers should be placed on such a
footing as to be looked down by officers from foreign countries who
moved in a lower sphere. Therefore, when they looked into the reason of
the thing, and found their present salaries were unequal to their
support, not in the style of splendor observed in foreign courts, but
according to the manner of living in Philadelphia, would they not be
willing to increase them? He believed they would.

The present PRESIDENT, he said, was a man of fortune, and never took
from the Government more than would support his table, either during the
war or during his Presidency. And what, he asked, did these expenses
amount to? To the whole sum allowed him by law. But were they always to
expect to have a PRESIDENT who would give his services to his country?
Or had the PRESIDENT set a bad example, by living in a style of
extravagance and splendor? He believed this was not the opinion of
Americans, or that of foreign countries. If, then, the present PRESIDENT
had lived upon his own fortune, and the whole of his compensation had
gone to defray the expenses of his table, if this compensation was not
advanced, how were future Presidents to come forward, to support the
same style? They could not do it without infringing on their own
fortunes. And do the citizens of the United States, he asked, wish their
First Magistrate to be placed in this situation? He could not think so.
He believed they meant to make ample provision for his support; and if
the present provision was found inadequate, they would condemn their
Representatives; they would say they did not support the dignity of
their country, if they neglected to advance it.

The same observations, Mr. B. said, would apply to the VICE PRESIDENT,
and to other officers of Government. He did not wish the salaries of
their officers to be such as should enable them to make fortunes out of
them, but he would have them sufficient to afford a handsome living.
Were they so at present? He believed not. It had been said, the other
day, that they could not afford to live in the same style with persons
who stood on the same footing with them before they went into office. He
could not say whether they were obliged to intrench on their own private
fortunes; if it was so, he asked if it were reasonable or just that they
should be so placed? It certainly was not; and, therefore, convinced as
he was that the people of the United States were willing and able to
support the expenses of their Government, and that they wished their
officers to have a just and reasonable compensation, which should not
only enable them to make a respectable appearance in the eyes of their
own citizens, but in those of foreigners, he should have no scruples in
giving his consent to the advances proposed.

As to the compensation allowed to the members of that House, here he had
knowledge; he could speak from experience. He could say that he had
diminished his income one thousand dollars a year since he had a seat in
that House. Did his constituents, he asked, wish this? He believed not.
They did not wish him to intrench on his private fortune while he was
serving them. They did not expect him to squander away their money in
profusion, nor did he; he lived in the most economical style; but they
wished his reasonable expenses to be paid. Besides, said Mr. B., were
the rates of compensation, when first established, established upon this
principle? He thought not. They were then thought to be a just and
reasonable compensation; and, if it was not then unreasonable, it could
not now be reasonable. Was it right, he asked, when every kind of labor
was higher by one third or one-half than at that time, that the
compensations allowed to persons employed by Government should remain
stationary? He could not conceive that this was either just or proper,
or that the citizens of the United States wished it.

If any conclusion might be drawn from the practice of individual States,
they would be warranted in making the proposed advance, since many of
their Legislatures had advanced the pay of their members. Indeed, he
believed the people were generally convinced of the necessity of
advancing the compensations allowed to the officers of Government and
members of the Legislature, under the present circumstances.

Mr. B. said he was not for making a permanent increase of salaries,
except to the PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT. He did not conceive that the
members of the Legislature ought to have more than was sufficient to
support them, without obliging them to infringe upon their own fortunes.
He wished the advance thereof to operate no longer than until the
present existing circumstances were removed; he should move, therefore,
to have the duration of this regulation for one year, instead of two, as
it was possible in the mean time the price of living might be so reduced
as to make the additional allowance no longer necessary.

Mr. RUTHERFORD said, if gentlemen reasoned together for a moment, they
would be convinced this measure was altogether improper and unjust. Our
present PRESIDENT, said he, is looked up to with reverence, as to
Cincinnatus, as a good republican. When the commissioners from the
Republic of Holland went to treat with Spain, they went in a style of
such simplicity as to command the greatest respect. They afterwards
appointed a Stadtholder, a man of great reputation and patriotism
doubtless, like our PRESIDENT; but, as soon as they suffered themselves
to lose sight of their simplicity and plainness of manners, and got into
the policy and splendor of Courts, they were enslaved by their
Stadtholder; for, within these few years, the office of Stadtholder has
been declared hereditary. What an extravagance is this; that a man
should be born a Stadtholder or a King! While the Roman people
maintained their simplicity of manners, while Cincinnatus was amongst
them, they were a happy people; but when they lost sight of their
plainness of manners, they lost sight of their happiness. Let us look at
our sister rising Republic, and observe how they are doing away all pomp
and pageantry in their Government and country, and aiming at a
simplicity of manners; but, said he, I fear we have not lost sight
sufficiently of kings, priests, and courts. This was his dread. It was
necessary to bound these ideas. Patriotism could not be purchased, and
should they despair of getting a man to fill the office of PRESIDENT
without they increased the salary? Must they hire a man for this
purpose? No, they should not be obliged to do this; there would always
be found men of abilities and patriotism to fill that office, without
any view to pecuniary advantage.

Mr. DENT said the question was to make an amendment by striking out the
first section. Being in favor of that part which contemplated the
addition of five thousand dollars to the salary of the PRESIDENT, and
opposed to any addition to that of the VICE PRESIDENT, he wished the
question divided, in order to accommodate his vote.

The Chairman said the motion was to strike out the whole section, and it
could not be divided.

The motion for striking out was then put and carried--56 members being
in favor of it.

_Election of President._

A message was received from the Senate informing the House that the VICE
PRESIDENT had laid before them the following communication:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      In consequence of the declaration made yesterday in the
      Chamber of the House of Representatives of the election of
      a President and Vice President of the United States, the
      record of which has just now been read from your journal by
      your Secretary, I have judged it proper to give notice
      that, on the 4th of March next, at 12 o'clock, I propose to
      attend again in the Chamber of the House of
      Representatives, in order to take the oath prescribed by
      the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the
      President, to be administered by the Chief Justice or such
      other Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States as
      can most conveniently attend; and, in case none of those
      Judges can attend, by the Judge of the District of
      Pennsylvania, before such Senators and Representatives of
      the United States as may find it convenient to honor the
      transaction with their presence.


FRIDAY, February 10.

_Naval Policy: Purchase of a Site for a Navy Yard._

The next resolution which came under consideration, was that proposing
the purchase of a site for a navy yard.

Mr. PARKER doubted, from the spirit which seemed to be shown on this
occasion, that this resolution would not pass.

Mr. W. SMITH hoped this would be agreed to. Whatever gentlemen may now
think or determine on, it was probable we should at some time become a
naval power; and even with the most distant prospect of that, it would
show economy to prepare for it. He said it never could be too soon to
begin the business, and the most effectual method of procuring live
oak, and preserving it, was to take the earliest means to obtain, and
secure it, when obtained, for seasonable use. He read an extract from
the Secretary of War's report in support of the plan.

Mr. COIT said he was alarmed at the expense of this business. He saw in
the report the salaries of two persons already at Norfolk and
Portsmouth, for taking care of the timber, at 500 dollars each, 1,000
dollars. If they were to pay at this rate for overlooking the timber for
one ship, what might they expect would be the expense of a navy yard?

Mr. PARKER said, the persons to whom these salaries were paid, took care
of the timber at Norfolk and Portsmouth. It was necessary that some
person should look after it, or it should be disposed of; but, in case
the present resolution was agreed to, there would be no occasion in
future to pay these persons, as all the timber and other materials would
be stored in the navy yard. He said he had received an estimate from the
War Office of the expense which would be likely to attend the
establishment of a navy yard. The expense of 100 acres of land, and all
the necessary buildings, was estimated at 37,210 dollars.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, after having squandered so much money in getting
timber for these vessels, he thought some change of habit should take
place before they embarked largely in this matter. They had given twice
or thrice as much as the timber was worth, yet they were now called upon
to go on in the same course. It was not a time for going into this
business. If such a thing was even proper, two or three years could make
but little difference, and there could be little doubt but every thing
could then be bought at half price. This, however, was not his principal
objection. It was this: he did not want to see any such establishment; a
navy would never do any real good to this country, but would increase
the unhappiness of it. It would require large sums of money to support
it; its benefits were doubtful, and it might be of very mischievous
consequence to the nation.

Mr. SWANWICK said he entirely agreed with the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. NICHOLAS) that there was a necessity for some change of habit; they
appeared to be getting that change at present, and whatever their habits
were at present, he supposed they would come right at last. Whatever
might be their opinion of the necessity of a naval force, the European
nations, he believed, would convince them of the necessity of it, if
they only gave them time enough.

It was an extraordinary thing to look at the progress of economy in that
House with respect to these frigates. In the first place, six frigates
were necessary; they were afterwards reduced to three, and because an
officer was appointed to take care of the timber left on hand, a
gentleman from Connecticut wondered that $500 should be so employed. A
motion had been made to confine the Executive to finish the hulls of the
ships only. This would have been a strange economy. Indeed, such
attempts were made at economy on this business as were never introduced
upon any other. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) had observed
there was no use for ships at all. If the House were of that opinion,
such a resolution had better at once be come to; but the strange sort of
hesitating conduct which was adopted, exceeded all that he had heard of
in legislation.

Had gentlemen who declared these vessels to be of no use, contemplated
the situation of this country; that it depended wholly upon commerce for
revenue; that that commerce was now put in jeopardy, and that no
substitute had been found for the revenue thence arising? And would not
all this hesitation, whenever the subject of a navy came under
consideration, tempt European nations to continue their unjust
depredations upon our property at sea? It certainly would.

But even gentlemen who wished to confine themselves merely to the
finishing of the vessels at present, would not surely think it improper
for them to establish a navy yard, and to secure timber for future use.
Did those gentlemen consider what it was to deprive the country of a
rich mine of ship timber? If they hesitated on this subject, they surely
did not.

What had been said by the gentleman from Maryland on the subject of
Algiers, was very just; and the want of a navy power would have a
similar effect upon all our negotiations, as foreign nations would rise
or fall in their demands, according to our power at sea. The money
thrown away upon Algiers to purchase peace, would have been much better
employed in building ships; for if we had a few ships, that power would
not have committed the depredations upon us which she had done. And
whether the money was paid to Algiers or expended in building ships, it
was in both cases for the same purpose, viz: the protection of commerce.
But there was this great difference between the two expenditures. In the
one case, the dollars were shipped off to a foreign country, and in the
other, they were paid to our own citizens. The iron used was from our
own mines; the guns from our own manufactories; the hemp, and every
other material, were of our own growth and manufacture, so that the
money went into the hands of our artisans, manufacturers, and farmers.
And, therefore, though the frigates had cost a great deal of money, it
was some modification of the expense to consider that the money was gone
into the pockets of our own citizens. But, he asked if the loss we
sustained for the want of a naval power could be estimated? He said it
could not. We not only lost our property, but our seamen, and they were
not only lost to us, but were probably in the service of those countries
which were committing depredations upon us. The loss of property might
be recovered; but a hardy race of seamen once lost, could not be
recovered.

What an affecting spectacle had we the other day of sixty of these
unfortunate men returning from Algerine slavery? They were received into
the arms of their country with all the sympathy which the occasion
called for; but could gentlemen help feeling, at the same time, for the
impotence of our Government, when they recollected that the liberty of
these men had been purchased at a very high price from a petty despot?
And shall we continue to go on thus, and encourage the Barbary powers to
enslave our seamen by showing so great a reluctance to enter upon any
measure which might afford a defence against their depredations?

Mr. MURRAY believed it would be a very prudent measure to secure the
ship-timber in question; for if we did not, it was probable some foreign
nation would get possession of it. He did not know whether the laws of
Georgia would permit foreigners to purchase the land upon which this
timber grew; but if they would not, it would be no difficult thing to
get possession of it through the medium of an individual. If this
country were to become a maritime power, and no one who considered the
subject for a moment could doubt it, this was too rich a mine to be
neglected. What had been said about adopting the Chinese policy, might
serve to amuse them; but when they looked at the commerce of the
country, it was impossible they should not see the necessity of a naval
force to protect that commerce against the depredations of any nation
who chose to attack it. Indeed, it was come to this, they must either
provide for the protection of commerce, or deny the utility of it, and
give it up altogether.

But the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) was afraid if these
frigates were sent out to sea, they would involve us in a war. What!
said he, can it be supposed that three frigates would give us that
ridiculous kind of spirit which would induce us at any rate to go to
war? This would be a species of insanity which he did not think it was
probable we should fall into. No: these vessels would serve to protect
our coasts, and preserve our commerce from attacks, at least, within a
small distance from our own ports. How far they might serve to render us
of some importance in the eyes of foreign nations, he could not tell;
but he believed that three frigates would have a greater effect in this
respect with us, than ten to Sweden, Denmark, or Holland. We lie, said
he, near the high road of commerce to the West Indies, and these three
frigates, backed by national wealth, would show a disposition to become
a maritime power, and would have their effect upon European nations.

Besides, Mr. M. said, these vessels would be the foundation of a future
Navy. He was for shaping our means of defence to the means of offence
employed against us by other nations; for until the European nations
became wise enough to cease from war, it was necessary to provide means
of defence against their attacks. He should, therefore, always give his
support to every means of national defence. He wished our nation to
stand upon a respectable footing as a nation, since the most magnanimous
conduct was no security against the attacks of foreign powers. He
should, therefore, be in favor of a naval yard, and of providing
ship-timber for future use.

Mr. HARPER said, the two resolutions respecting a naval yard and a
provision for timber should come under consideration together; because,
if no provision was made for purchasing timber, a naval yard would be of
no use.

This question, he said, was capable of being considered under two points
of view: the one whether the measure was proper; the other, if the
measure was proper, whether it would not be better postponed for the
present. Both of these points required a considerable degree of
attention. There was a variety of considerations on both sides of the
question, and it remained for them to determine for the best.

Was it proper for this country, he asked, to turn its attention towards
marine strength? Did not our situation, and the circumstances in which
we stand, compel us to turn our attention to this object? He thought
they did, and for one or two reasons which he would submit to the
consideration of the committee.

It appeared to him out of the question that any kind of commerce should
be continued without some ships-of-war to protect it. This was the
dilemma in which we were placed. It was said by some gentlemen that this
dilemma might be avoided, by suffering commerce to go on unprotected,
and subject it to all risks; and that even then, there would be
sufficient benefit arising from it, to induce its continuance. This he
did not believe. If persons engaged in commerce could have no dependence
upon the protection of Government, a very few years, perhaps a few
months more, might convince them that the business could not and ought
not to be continued.

The present Government, he said, had only been in existence eight years,
and for nearly four of them commerce had been subject to every kind of
depredation. The usual calculation with respect to Europe was, that
during every ten years, it would be subject to war, and that these wars
would have a duration of from six to eight years, in the course of which
our property and citizens would be subject to the same violations and
injuries which they had for the last four years experienced, if no
provision was made, by a naval power, to prevent it.

Brought to this dilemma, said he, which side will you take? Will you
give up commerce, or build a Navy to protect it? Besides, he said, a
great part of our citizens who had been trained up in commerce from
their infancy, could not be driven from that kind of employment to which
they had always been accustomed. They could not be induced, like the
Chinese, to stay at home; they would be engaged in commerce, their
favorite pursuit. If they, then, were compelled to protect commerce, he
asked if there was any other way of doing it than by a Navy? He believed
not. Treaties afford a feeble and very inadequate protection; they were
broken whenever it suited the interest of a nation to break them.
Letters of marque might afford some protection; but this would operate
as a heavier tax upon the people than even the support of the Navy. The
money which a merchant expended in this way would eventually come upon
the people in the price which they would be obliged to pay for their
merchandise, and the means would be very inadequate to protection.

In China and the East Indies, Mr. H. said, the inhabitants could shut
themselves up within their own territory, and avoid any intercourse with
foreign nations. In countries so far removed from Europe, as to prevent
any one nation from making a monopoly, of its trade, this policy might
exist. But could America lay up her ships, and say she would open her
ports to all nations? No; that very instant you give up your trade to
that nation which has the greatest power at sea; for she will
immediately block up your ports, and oblige you to trade with them only.
In order, therefore, to trade with all nations, we must be the carriers
of our own produce, for other nations would not leave us at liberty to
do so. The strongest power would say to the others, you shall not trade
with these people, you shall do so and so, or we will go to war with
you. You must, therefore, said he, protect your own trade.

Will these resolutions, then, said he, if adopted, tend to this point?
He believed they would. To provide a dock-yard, and to take care of a
supply of timber suitable for the purpose of ship-building, were very
essential steps. Much expense, he said, would be saved in carrying on
the building of several ships together in one yard, instead of having
them scattered in different parts of the Union. Timber might also be
laid up to season in this yard, so as always to be ready for use; for,
he believed that much of the delay which had attended the building of
the ships now on the stocks, had been owing to the difficulty which had
attended the procuring of proper timber. Besides, Mr. H. said, its being
known to foreign nations, that you had provided a dock-yard, would have
some weight; it would at least have the appearance of an intention of
building a Navy.

With respect to the purchasing of land clothed with live oak timber, he
thought it a very desirable measure. It was well known that this timber
was confined to a few spots--a few sea islands on the coast of South
Carolina and Georgia, and some small strips along the seashore; and in
each of these places there were only a few trees of a sufficient size
for building large ships. The land upon which these trees grew, since
the cultivation of cotton had been introduced into those parts, was
become valuable land for that purpose. This induced the people to cut
down the timber and burn it, for the sake of getting the land, and there
was no way of arresting this practice, but by securing the land; and
being of so good a quality, when the trees were cut down, it would
probably sell for a greater price than was originally given for it.

Mr. GALLATIN saw no connection between the two resolutions, which the
gentleman who had just sat down thought it necessary to connect
together. The last resolution proposed the purchase of land clothed with
live oak; the present proposed the appropriation of a sum of money for
purchasing the site of a naval yard, &c., as a foundation for a Navy.
The last went only to the securing of timber for the building of a Navy,
if at any day it should be thought necessary; he believed he should vote
for the last, but certainly against the first.

They had been told that no commerce could exist without protection, and
that that protection must be a Navy; from whence it would follow, that
if a Navy was necessary to protect commerce, it must be a Navy competent
to vie with the navies of other nations. He would here ask, how
gentlemen drew their conclusion, that commerce could not exist without
the protection of a Navy. He wished they would show from the example of
any nation in Europe, or from our own example, that commerce and navies
had gone hand in hand. There was no nation, except Great Britain, said
he, whose Navy had any connection with commerce. No nation, except
England and Holland, had more to do with commerce than this country, and
yet we had no Navy; and though for the four last years this commerce had
been subject to continual depredations, it was not exceeded by any
nation, except the two he had named. And if they looked to Europe, they
would find there was no connection between navies and commerce. Russia
and Sweden had considerable navies, but little commerce; whilst Holland,
whose Navy was by no means large, ranked next to England with respect to
commerce. Hamburg, he said, was one of the first commercial States in
Europe, yet she had no Navy. Navies, he said, were the instruments of
power, more calculated to annoy the trade of other nations than to
protect that of the nation to which they belong.

But there was another position which he should take in opposition to
gentlemen who supported the creation of a Navy, viz: that however useful
or desirable a Navy might be, this country was not equal to the support
of one. We might have two or three frigates indeed, but, when he said we
could not support a Navy, he meant to say we could not support such a
Navy as should claim respect, in the sense which those gentlemen spoke
of it; such as being an object of terror to foreign nations. If they
calculated what the three frigates had cost, considered the scanty
manner in which this country was peopled, our inability to raise any
very large revenue, and the high price of labor, the truth of this
assertion would appear evident.

Again, if such a Navy were created, how was it to be manned? He wished
gentlemen to point out any mode in which a Navy could be manned in this
country without having recourse to the abominable practice of
impressment. If the nations of Europe found it impossible to man their
fleets without having recourse to these violent means, he believed it
would be impossible, without breaking down those barriers which secured
the liberty of every citizen, to man a Navy in this country.

Perhaps he might be asked, if we were, then, to be left without
protection? He thought there were means of protection which arose from
our peculiar situation, and that we ought not to borrow institutions
from other nations for which we were not fit. If our commerce had
increased, notwithstanding its want of protection; if we had a greater
number of seamen than any other nation, except England, this, he
thought, pointed out the way in which commerce ought to be protected.
The fact was, that our only mode of warfare against European nations at
sea, was by putting our seamen on board privateers, and covering the sea
with them; these would annoy their trade, and distress them more than
any other mode of defence we could adopt.[10]


MONDAY, February 13.

_Purchase of Live Oak Lands._

Mr. HARPER said, that though the House had declined coming to a
resolution to authorize the PRESIDENT to purchase certain lands in
Georgia, clothed with live oak and red cedar timber, as a reserve for
future naval purposes, yet there seemed to be a disposition to cause an
inquiry to be made on the subject. He therefore proposed a resolution to
the House to the following effect:

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      authorized and requested to cause to be made and reported
      to this House as early as may be after the meeting of the
      next session of Congress, an inspection of lands furnished
      with live oak and red cedar timber, with the relative
      advantages of different situations with respect to their
      fitness for naval purposes, and the rates at which
      purchases may be made."

Ordered to lie on the table.

_John de Neufville._

On motion of Mr. MADISON, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole on the following report of the committee, to whom was referred
the memorial of Anna de Neufville, widow of John de Neufville, deceased.
They report--

      "That the services and sacrifices of the said John de
      Neufville to the United States, during the war of their
      Revolution, as stated in the said memorial, and vouched by
      the testimonies herewith reported, constitute a reasonable
      claim, in behalf of his, at present, very distressed widow
      and children, on the justice of the United States. That it
      being impossible, from various and peculiar circumstances
      incident to the services rendered, to ascertain and
      liquidate the compensation due into a precise sum, it is
      necessary for Congress to decide on and provide for such
      allowance as may be deemed equitable and right. That, in
      the opinion of the committee, the sum of three thousand
      dollars may be a proper allowance. They therefore propose
      the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made, by law, for
      granting to the widow and two children of John de
      Neufville, the sum of three thousand dollars, to be equally
      divided among them."

This report was advocated by Messrs. HARPER, W. SMITH, SWANWICK, HAVENS,
HEATH, THATCHER, VARNUM, and RUTHERFORD. They stated that the husband of
the petitioner, John de Neufville, was an eminent merchant at Amsterdam;
that he was an influential character there, and, at an early period of
our Revolutionary war, entered with great zeal into the interests of
America; that, meeting with Mr. William Lee, the Commissioner of the
United States, he endeavored to bring about a treaty between the United
Netherlands and the United States, which being discovered by the
British, that Court used its influence with the Government of that
country to harass and drive him out of the country; that during his
residence at Amsterdam, his house was a constant asylum for American
citizens; that he had made large advances in money for the service of
the United States, which obliged him to extend his credit beyond what
was warranted by the regular course of trade, and a failure in the
payment of which (owing to the embarrassed circumstances of the United
States at that time) had greatly injured him, and left him to the mercy
of his creditors. The consequence was, he was reduced from affluence to
poverty at an advanced period of life. Some years ago he arrived at
Boston with his wife and two children, where he subsisted in a very
humble manner upon the bounty of his friends in Holland; those friends
having, by the reverses occasioned by the Revolution, been much injured
in their property, could afford him but a scanty pittance; but Mr. de
Neufville being dead, the petitioner was deprived of this assistance;
and, to add to her repeated misfortunes, the son of her late husband,
from their multiplied sufferings, had been deprived of his reason. Under
this pressure of grievances, the petitioner was come from Boston to lay
her case before Congress, and pray relief. This peculiarly distressing
case was supported with great zeal and feeling by its advocates,
particularly by Mr. HARPER.

The claim was opposed by Messrs. COIT, SWIFT, and NICHOLAS. An
application, it seems, was made by Mr. de Neufville, during his
life-time, for redress; upon which the then Secretary of State (Mr.
JEFFERSON) reported. This report, after stating all the facts upon
which the claim was founded, gave it as his opinion, that the petitioner
had no real claim on the United States. This report, it seems, had never
been acted upon. The reading of it, as well as of all the documents
relative to this claim, was called for, and they were accordingly read.
The opposers of this claim acknowledged the distressed situation of the
petitioner, but denied the justice of her claim upon the United States;
the treaty which Mr. de Neufville proposed to enter into with Mr. Lee,
they supposed, was a treaty which he believed would prove beneficial to
his country, and not to the United States: that there were many claims
in our own country from persons who had been injured by the war, the
justice of which was less equivocal, and the distress at least equal.
Mr. NICHOLAS said, a few days ago only, a poor man, whose health had
been so much impaired in the war, that he was unable to earn his living,
had applied to him to bring his case before Congress, yet, as the
pension law affords no relief to any person, except he had been wounded,
he was obliged to inform him that he could do nothing for him. There
were multitudes of such instances, equally distressing with the present,
to which no relief could be afforded.

Mr. THATCHER moved to have the three thousand dollars struck out, and
five inserted. This was negatived--45 to 37; but the resolution was
agreed to as reported--yeas 63, nays 25.


THURSDAY, February 16.

_John C. Symmes._

Mr. GALLATIN said, a report had been made upon the contract between John
C. Symmes and his associates, and the United States, which it was of
importance to pass into a law this session, as the object was four
hundred thousand acres of land, which was worth about eight hundred
thousand dollars.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the subject, when the report, which was very long, having been read, the
committee agreed to the resolution reported, which was in the following
words:

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a
      bill to authorize the President of the United States to
      grant, in fee simple, to John C. Symmes and his associates,
      that part of a tract of land, the boundaries whereof are
      ascertained by a survey executed in conformity to the act
      of Congress, entitled 'An act for ascertaining the bounds
      of a tract of land purchased by J. C. Symmes,' and returned
      to the Treasury Department the 10th of January, 1794, which
      is not included within the bounds of a grant already made,
      on September 8, 1794, to the said J. C. Symmes and his
      associates; excepting and reserving out of the same the
      lots reserved by the original contract, entered into
      between the United States and the said Symmes and his
      associates; provided that the said Symmes and his
      associates shall previously, in conformity to the terms of
      the original contract, make the requisite payment for the
      tract to be granted to them, and for the 47,625 acres, part
      of the grant already made to them on the 30th September,
      1794, for which they have not yet paid any consideration;
      and provided, also, that the township reserved for an
      Academy shall have been previously laid off and secured,
      according to the terms of the contract, and of the
      resolutions and law of Congress relative thereto."


FRIDAY, February 17.

_Increase of Duties._

BROWN SUGAR.

Mr. W. SMITH said, the proposed increase, it was calculated, would raise
110,000 dollars, and as the article was not liable to be smuggled, nor
its consumption to be decreased, it would be a certain, and he thought,
an eligible tax.

Mr. HOLLAND had no doubt but this tax would augment the revenue; but he
knew also that it would fall more upon the poor than upon the rich, and
he thought they ought not to add to their burdens. He thought there were
other articles which would bear some addition, but either brown sugar or
salt would be much felt. If they studied that which would be burdensome,
here they might fix, but he hoped this was not the principle. By
advancing an article so universally used, a rise of labor (already too
high) must naturally follow.

Mr. KITCHELL believed the rich and opulent would bear their portion of
this tax as well as the poor, as it would fall upon fine sugar as well
as upon brown. It would therefore be paid in proportion to the sugar
used, and would fall as equally as any other tax which could be laid.

In this instance, Mr. K. said, gentlemen seemed apprehensive of the poor
bearing too great a part of the burden; but, if the direct tax on land
were to take place, would it not, he asked, fall much heavier upon the
poor than a tax on sugar? He believed it would; since the poor who held
lands would be called upon to pay their portion of it, whilst the rich
who held no lands, would escape it. He, therefore, thought this a far
preferable tax.

Mr. DEARBORN said, if further revenue was necessary, he could not
conceive any article which would bear an advance of duty better than the
one proposed. The present duty, he said, was one and a half cent a
pound, and could it be supposed that to lay an additional half cent upon
it, could make much difference to the consumer, or that it would ever be
felt, or that, at the end of a year, it would be discovered whether one
and a half or two cents duty had been paid upon a pound of sugar? He
should have no objection, instead of half a cent, to lay an additional
cent upon this article. In various parts of the country, brown sugar was
retailed at from 12 to 20 cents a pound, the price being much increased
from the present distressed situation of the West Indies. But they would
find sugar of the same quality selling in one place for 12, in another
for 14 or 16 cents; therefore, whether the duty was one or two cents, he
did not think it would be felt by any body. It was true, that it was an
article used by the middling and lower classes of the people; but the
tax falling upon fine as well as brown sugar, all parts of the community
would bear an equal share in the burden.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved to strike out the half cent, and insert a cent. It
appeared to him that such an advance could not materially affect the
consumer. The people, it was true, might use less; but, if they did so,
as it was an article of luxury, every pound of sugar less which was
consumed, would be of benefit to the country, by keeping the money which
it cost in a foreign market at home. But he did not believe that this
would be the case; or that the proposed additional duty would increase
the price of labor, as had been suggested. He believed the price of
labor would be regulated by the price which the farmer was enabled to
get for his produce. Whatever the farmer could afford to give his
laborer (especially in this country where agriculture is the true
interest) would fix the price of all other labor.

Mr. HOLLAND said, perhaps the constituents of the gentleman last up
might manufacture their own sugar, and therefore would not be affected
by this tax; but the greater part of his constituents were obliged to
use and purchase their sugar; and if it were a luxury, it was one he did
not wish to deprive them of, but that they might have it upon the same
terms as usual. He looked upon it as a necessary of life, already at too
high a price, and he should, therefore, oppose any advance of duty upon
it.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he and his constituents were in the same situation
with the gentleman from New York (Mr. WILLIAMS) and his constituents.
They manufactured almost the whole of their own sugar; very little
imported sugar was used; indeed, they sometimes exported sugar; but
though this reason seemed to act pretty powerfully upon the gentleman
from New York, it would not have the same effect upon him. Whenever a
measure operated partially upon other parts of the Union, though it
might operate in favor of his constituents, he should feel himself in
duty bound to oppose it. On the ground of their being Representatives of
the whole Union, as well as on the ground of policy, he did not believe
it was right to endeavor to throw a burden upon one part of the Union,
because the part in which they were most particularly interested, would
escape it. He hoped the amendment would be rejected, and after the sense
of the committee should have been taken upon it, he also would move an
amendment. At present, brown sugar paid one and a half cent a pound
duty, and molasses three cents per gallon. He should, therefore, move to
have an additional cent laid upon molasses, in order that the two
articles might be increased in the same proportion. He was against any
increase at present; but if the duty on one article was increased, the
other ought also to be increased.

Mr. WILLIAMS observed, that he had said the people in the part of the
country from whence he came, made their own sugar during the war; if
they were to make it now, it would cost them more than double the price
at which they might purchase it. He said, when the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) found the land tax was not likely to pass,
he wished to defeat every proposition for an indirect tax. He had
attempted, therefore, to defeat an additional tax on sugar, by proposing
to add molasses to the resolution. He did not think this fair; he wished
every proposition to stand upon its own ground. A few days ago that
gentleman had insisted upon the necessity of laying a direct tax; but
now he came forward, and said no additional revenue was wanting. He
wished not to have a compulsory tax, but a tax which persons might pay
or not. If they did not like to pay the tax on sugar, they might do
without it.

Mr. COOPER said he was against any additional duty on salt or sugar,
though he and his constituents (as well as his colleague and his
constituents) should bear no part of the burden, as they made not only
sufficient for themselves, but for sale. Indeed, he said, a duty on salt
exported out of the United States, would produce revenue, as a
considerable quantity was sent into Upper Canada.

Mr. WILLIAMS denied that his constituents made any salt; they had no
salt but what paid duty; nor did his constituents make one-fourth of the
sugar they used; nor did he believe his colleague's (Mr. COOPER's)
constituents made one-half of the sugar they used, as he well knew that
a large quantity of sugar was sent to that district by way of Albany.

Mr. READ hoped the amendment would obtain. Although such persons as
lived at a distance from market manufactured their own sugar, and
consequently would be excused from this duty, yet they labored under
many disadvantages in other respects, on account of their remoteness
from market, and therefore he had no objection to their being excused
from the operation of this tax. He did not believe this tax on sugar
would fall upon poor persons. Farmers, indeed, used a little brown
sugar, but they would rather pay a little more for this article than
have their land taxed.

Mr. CLAIBORNE was against the amendment. If an additional duty of one
cent was laid upon brown sugar, the different dealers would make it
three or four, so that it would be materially felt.

Mr. GALLATIN then moved to amend the resolution, by adding an additional
cent per gallon upon molasses. At present the duty on brown sugar was
one and a half cent per pound, and on molasses three cents per gallon.
The advance of 33 per cent. on the present duty would be the same that
had been agreed to be laid upon sugar.

Mr. SWANWICK seconded the motion. The only way in which the tax on brown
sugar could be secured was by advancing the duty on molasses in the same
proportion, otherwise molasses would be used in the place of sugar, and
the duty would be evaded. But he would have gentlemen consider in what
situation they placed the revenue in respect to drawbacks. The person
who paid the duty was probably not the same who drew the drawback on
exportation; the United States run the risk, therefore, of paying the
drawback, without receiving the duty. Though he thought the tax on sugar
highly objectionable, yet if it were adopted, he thought it right that
it should be accompanied by a proportionate tax on molasses as a
security to the duty being paid. One cent a pound on sugar, it was said,
was a trifle; but it was well known that the price of that article was
at present very exorbitant, from the disorders which had taken place in
the West Indies.

Mr. NICKOLAS hoped the amendment would be agreed to. His principal
objection to a tax on sugar was, because, having been successful in
making one addition, it would be an argument for making future ones, but
if molasses was added to it, the tax would then fall more equally on the
poor of different parts of the Union, and be a means of keeping down the
tax.

Mr. BUCK said, if he thought the advocates of this amendment would vote
for the resolution when amended, he might be induced to vote for it; but
he believed they did not mean to do so. If an increase of the duty on
brown sugar would fall upon the poorer class of the people, an
additional duty on molasses would fall much heavier upon them. But he
thought gentlemen were mistaken with respect to the operation of the tax
on brown sugar; in the country it would not fall upon the poor, though
in the cities it might do so; though in increasing the duty on brown
sugar, that on fine was also increased. In the country it was the rich
who used brown sugar; they had not got to that pitch of refinement which
called for the use of fine sugar; they used brown sugar, and the poor
used none; they sweetened with molasses. Notwithstanding this, if he
thought gentlemen meant to vote for the resolution when amended, he
would not object to the addition on molasses, as he did not think so
small an advance would be materially felt.

Mr. RUTHERFORD hoped they should not agree to lay an additional duty on
either of these necessaries of life. He hoped there was sufficient good
sense in the House to oppose such a measure. They were used by all
classes, from the infant to the stoutest man; particularly by many poor,
infirm, aged persons, who looked upon them as nutritious and balmy
nourishments. He hoped, therefore, they would not increase the price of
those articles; for, if an additional cent was added, the dealers would
add two, three, or four cents, which would be more than the poor could
afford to pay for them.

Mr. CHRISTIE believed the gentleman from Pennsylvania meant, by the
introduction of this amendment, to defeat the tax on sugar altogether;
he should, therefore, vote against this amendment; but if the additional
tax on sugar should be carried, and the additional tax on molasses
should be introduced alone, he would vote for it, but he would not vote
for them together. He did not think the tax on sugar would fall upon the
poor, particularly as fine sugar would be taxed equally with the brown.
He thought it was a fair object of taxation. He believed they should
want revenue, and he did not know an article from which it could be
better raised.

Mr. FINDLAY was at a loss to know how a tax on molasses would operate;
but his doubts had been removed by the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr.
BUCK,) who had informed them it was used by the poor in place of brown
sugar. In many parts of Pennsylvania molasses was scarcely known, and
brown sugar was generally used by the poor; if, therefore, the same
class of persons in one part of the country used molasses for the same
purpose for which brown sugar was used in other parts, it was only
reasonable that both should be taxed in the same proportion.

His colleague (Mr. GALLATIN) had mentioned that his constituents would
not pay any of this tax, as they made their own sugar. It was so with a
part of his constituents, but not with the whole. As it would be unjust
to pass one tax without the other, he should be in favor of the
amendment.

Mr. GALLATIN said, it had been charged against him, that he had
introduced his amendment with a view to defeat the tax on sugar. He had
already said that he did not wish for any indirect tax during the
present session; but, at the same time, he considered it his duty, if a
majority should choose to pass the resolution, to make it as good as
possible before he voted against it, for this purpose he had introduced
his amendment. Whenever the duty on sugar was increased, that on
molasses should also be increased. With respect to what had been said
about the duty on brown sugar not falling upon the poor, it was
contradicted by the quantity every year imported into the United States.
When they knew that this amounted to twenty-two millions of pounds
weight, they must conclude that it was used by the poor as well as the
rich; for though the Eastern States used a great deal of molasses, it
was not the case in the Middle, Southern, and Western States; all
classes of citizens in those States used sugar. The voting for the
amendment now was the same as voting for it in any other shape. It was
doing now what would be done hereafter, if now omitted. There was
nothing informal in it. He saw no reason which could be urged for one
taking place, which would not equally hold with respect to the other.

Mr. SWANWICK thought that those gentlemen who separated the articles of
sugar and molasses, would wish to defeat the object; thus it was with
the gentleman last up. This was introduced with a view of securing the
collection. Mr. S. said he had before stated the injury the United
States might sustain in case of a failure of pay from the imported, and
need not repeat that he objected _in toto_ to the tax.

Mr. BUCK asked if, when on the question on the resolution, (if,
adopted,) a separate vote could be given? He was answered no. Then he
would observe to the gentleman that, if it could not be separated, he
hoped it would not be introduced, it having been said the duty on sugar
would operate on the poor; now, he said, here was an article introduced
with it that would operate worse than the other; therefore, he should
oppose both, if put together, when, if separated, he should have voted
for the tax on molasses alone, as sugar was a great means of sustenance
and use.

The Chairman again remarked (in reference to what had fallen from Mr. W.
SMITH) that the amendment was in order, though he did not think it the
most fair way of introducing the subject.

Mr. GALLATIN conceived that he was the best judge of the fairness of his
proceedings; and as the Chairman had declared the amendment to be in
order, he expected a question would be taken upon it.

Mr. NICHOLAS begged leave to differ in opinion from the Chair in this
instance, though he must own much deference was due to it: he thought
the proceedings perfectly fair. Mr. N. would vote for this, in order to
have the two connected; that gentleman could now vote against the
addition of molasses, then he would have an opportunity to vote on sugar
alone. He should wish it extended to both alike. The gentleman (Mr.
BUCK) was mistaken in his application on this subject; it was not taxing
the sustenance of the poor in one article more than another, for the
sugar would most affect one part, yet molasses would as much affect
another; he, therefore, hoped, if gentlemen wished fair and equal
taxation, that this association would take place; this equalization
would go to prevent any opposition to the tax, which would otherwise be
hazarded.

Mr. BUCK was satisfied with this explanation; therefore, supposing
gentlemen who supported the amendment would vote for both, according to
this modification, he should go with them; if not, he should oppose the
amendment.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, he did not rise to speak to the point of
order; he considered that as already settled by the Chairman. Every
member, he said, against laying an additional tax upon molasses, would,
of course, vote against the amendment; and all those who had no
objection to the tax, but who did not wish it to be thus introduced, of
whom he found there was not a few, might join them, as, after the
additional tax on sugar was agreed to, that on molasses might be again
introduced.

Mr. S. SMITH said, he had some doubt before the last gentleman was up,
of the propriety of tacking these two articles together, but now he had
none. One part of the Union, he supposed, would be for voting out
molasses: but his constituents would not like the tax on sugar, except
it was accompanied with that on molasses; as a subject of sweetening he
thought they should both go together. Mr. S. said, he had another
article of sweetening, which he wished also to add to the resolution:
great quantities of sugar-candy were manufactured in Holland and sent
all over Germany; it was used with tea and coffee, in the place of
sugar. This article, he said, was finding its way among the Germans in
this country. At present it only paid a duty of 10 per cent. _ad
valorem_, which was a very inadequate duty, when compared with that paid
on sugar. Mr. S. said, he was against going into the subject of indirect
taxes, but he thought with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
GALLATIN) that it was his duty to make the resolution as good as he
could. Nothing had been said to prove that we had not revenue enough for
the present; but he would, however, move to add nine cents a pound upon
sugar-candy imported.

Mr. S. said, he agreed with the Secretary of the Treasury, that sugar
was amongst the most proper articles upon which to lay an additional
impost; but he wished for some permanent source of revenue, and not
adopt the trifling modes proposed. Gentlemen talked of deceiving the
people; he said they could not be deceived; they would know there were
two parties in that House, the one for direct, the other for indirect
taxes. Those gentlemen who were opposed to direct taxes brought forward
these articles in place of it. The people need not be told this; they
saw it evidently enough.

Mr. HOLLAND said, though he was opposed to direct taxes, he was also on
sugar and molasses; he saw all the disadvantages of some other gentlemen
on taxing West India produce at this critical juncture; but if it must
pass, he should think it his duty to endeavor to make it pass as
unexceptionably as possible; however, he should oppose both, and though
it affected his constituents differently from those of Vermont, yet he
should not include them as necessarily connected. Mr. H. thought if
these were opposed, there might be many articles more proper to lay a
tax on; but he thought there was no necessity for any this session.

The question for adding one cent per gallon on molasses was then put and
carried.

Mr. S. SMITH then moved that nine cents per pound be laid on sugar-candy
imported, observing that it was much used by the Dutch, and there being
much sweetening in it, it should bear a proportionate duty.

Mr. W. SMITH wished the gentleman to be candid on the motive of his
proposition.

Mr. S. SMITH answered, that his conduct with respect to the subject had
always been fair and unequivocal; he wished the whole proposition to be
defeated, which he had before declared, but, to make it equal and
consistent, he proposed the addition.

It was then put and carried.

The question was put on the whole resolution, as amended, and
carried--yeas 52.


FRIDAY, February 17

_Increase of Duties._

SALT.

Mr. HARPER then proposed that an additional duty of five cents per
bushel should he laid upon all salt imported in the United States. [Mr.
H. read the letter of the Secretary, wherein he mentions salt as being
at a much lower rate of duty than in other countries, and that no tax
laid upon it could be evaded, from its necessity and bulk.] Mr. H.
added, as, in his opinion, satisfactory answers had been given to the
objections which had been urged against this tax, it was not necessary
to say more on the subject.

Mr. GALLATIN said the arguments of the Secretary of the Treasury were
excellent fiscal arguments, and went to say, "provided we can get money,
no matter how." He says salt cannot be smuggled; that we know: whether
the duty was increased, or remain as it was, the people must consume the
same. This was true, and the same arguments might be used for taxing the
light or the water. Of all the necessaries of life, a duty was most
easily collected upon salt; and this was the reason which had induced
other countries to tax it so heavily; and yet this was used as an
argument for increasing the duty here; but he was not one of those who
felt any consolation, upon such an increase of duty, that there were
other countries where the duty was yet higher.

Mr. G. said, as to any satisfactory answers which had been given to the
objections to this tax, he had not heard them; he believed they had not
been answered at all; except, indeed, sullen silence might be deemed
satisfactory answers; if it were, they had indeed been answered
satisfactorily.

Mr. G. here repeated the objections to the tax which he had made on a
former occasion, viz: that it would operate as a poll-tax; that it would
fall partially on some districts of country, and upon some classes of
citizens more than others. He said salt in that part of the country from
which he came was already upwards of four dollars a bushel, and that it
would be therefore oppressive to increase the evil, by adding fresh
duties upon it.

Mr. NICHOLAS said a tax on salt was equally objectionable, whether it
was considered as a poll-tax, or as a tax upon agriculture. As a
poll-tax, every one would see the injustice of charging all men alike
with a tax, without respect to their ability to pay it; as a tax upon
agriculture, he was able to say something from experience. He was
willing to give all the authority to the opinion of the Secretary of the
Treasury which he could wish, but he could not yield his opinion to him.
He knew that agriculture was at present very much depressed by the high
price of salt; he had himself refrained from the use of it, by its
dearness, though he believed his cattle had been the worse for it. The
poorer class of citizens in the part of the country from which he came
were generally owners of cattle, and employed themselves in taking care
of them. These men found it at present as much as they could do to make
a comfortable living, and any additional tax on salt would be very ill
received by them. He was satisfied that it was a tax which would operate
with great inequality; it was a tax upon one kind of employment--upon an
employment which was generally pursued by the poorer classes, and
consequently least able to pay it. It might be said, five cents a bushel
was a trifle; but he said he objected to it from the principle of taking
money where it could be got, as, if five cents were now to be added, the
same argument would hold for adding another and another five on a future
day.

Mr. HOLLAND was opposed to the amendment; he said no article which could
be mentioned would bear a greater augmentation than salt; indeed the
whole revenue of the United States might be raised from it, because it
must be used by every person; but that was no reason why the whole
burden should be laid on it. In North Carolina, Mr. H. said, it was four
dollars per bushel, which was sufficiently high without adding to the
price, and was always a cash article, and difficult to be had for that.
It being an article of absolute necessity, the rich would not pay more,
if so much, as the poor.

Mr. RUTHERFORD said, he was against this tax for two reasons; the first
was on account of its inequality, and the next on account of its
odiousness. A tax on salt, he said, was almost like taxing the common
air. Farmers were obliged to use large quantities of it for their stock;
it rendered them docile and easy to be managed. Indeed it could not be
done without; a person was nothing without salt. The price at present
was enormous on the frontier, and this duty would add prodigiously to
it; for this reason he should give it his flat opposition.

Mr. FINDLAY said, because salt was necessary, and because it could not
be smuggled, would not surely be sufficient arguments for increasing the
duty upon it. The law of reason, he said, was the law of justice. Mr. F.
gave an account of the progress of this tax. His colleague (Mr.
GALLATIN) must have been mistaken as to the price which this article
bore in the Western country. He had himself lately paid six guineas for
six bushels of salt. Indeed this was considered as the greatest
inconvenience in that part of the country, and they could not at present
be relieved from it. Providence, who generally bestowed the necessaries
of life in a very general manner, had not provided them with salt. And
shall we, for this reason, monopolize a revenue upon it? For the same
reason would hold good for paying the whole upon it as a part. He
trusted they would not be so unjust to the people of that country.

Mr. HARPER said, after all the time which had been taken up in
discussing this subject, he would not occupy the attention of the
committee longer than while he made one or two remarks.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) had said that no answer
had been given to his objections against an additional tax on salt. He
should not enter into a dispute with that gentleman upon what might be
deemed an answer; but he believed many members of that House would
remember that an answer was given, and probably they might also think it
a satisfactory one; at least it was so to one person. The objections
brought against this tax would be well-founded, if the whole revenue was
proposed to be raised from it; or if it were intended as a substitute
for a land tax, or any other great object; if two or three millions were
wanted from it, then it might be objected to upon good ground; but when
one hundred thousand dollars only were proposed to be drawn from this
source, he did not think the objections would hold. Admitting, said Mr.
H., that there was some inequality in the operation of this tax, those
persons upon whom it fell heaviest were exonerated from many other taxes
which other parts of the country had to pay. They had, for instance,
just agreed to increase the duty upon a certain species of cotton goods,
of which they would not purchase a single yard. The present revenue was
six millions four hundred thousand dollars, of which salt pays near
three hundred thousand dollars. The people on the frontier, who pay for
salt, are in a great measure exempt from other articles taxed; they
purchased neither foreign wines nor spirits, high priced dresses nor
furniture; all they wanted was corduroys, &c., which was very
unfrequent. If five cents per bushel was laid on salt, those persons
would have about a dollar a year more to pay, and nine-tenths not half a
dollar. What could be more easy? Indeed, except the people were told of
the duty they would not know it, as its effects would be so trifling.

With respect to the price of salt at Fort Pitt, as a gentleman had
observed, it might be high, but was this occasioned by a duty? No, but
by the situation of the country. Ought they not, then, he asked, to
devise some species of tax by which to draw some part of the revenue
from the inhabitants of the back country? He thought so far from this
being wrong, that justice required it. This subject did not address the
understanding, but the sensibility of the House, or perhaps the
sensibility of those out of the House.

The objections against the tax which had been urged, he thought, ought
not to have any weight, since it would operate with the greatest
equality upon the whole, and there would be safety, propriety, and
justice, in making the augmentation in question. Suppose two cents were
put, instead of five; this would raise a good sum, and be very easy.

Mr. S. SMITH moved that the committee rise; which was negatived--there
being only twenty-five in favor of it.

Mr. W. SMITH said the question had best be taken on blank cents, then
five, four, or any number of cents could afterwards be added.

The question was then put, and lost--yeas 41, nays 48.


SATURDAY, February 18.

_Naval Appropriation._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
granting an appropriation for finishing the three frigates, and also
upon the bill repealing that part of the act which provided for the
officering and manning the frigates, both having been committed to the
same Committee of the Whole. That for repealing a part of the former law
came first under consideration.

Mr. W. SMITH said he could not abandon the idea of our some time
becoming a naval power; he very much disliked the repealing this act; in
order, however, to make the bill more palatable, and to remove some of
the embarrassments which the Senate would otherwise have to encounter,
he would move to substitute, instead of the word "repeal," the words
"suspend for ---- years."

Mr. COIT thought the very beginning of the frigates a wild notion, and
hoped the most distant idea of manning them would not enter gentlemen's
minds; he should therefore oppose the motion.

Mr. VENABLE said, it seemed the gentleman who moved the amendment did
not think it necessary the ships should now be manned. The operation of
the amendment appeared to put it in the power of one branch of the
Legislature, at a future day, to man the ships, and send them to sea. He
was surprised at the changeableness of the gentleman who moved and
favored the equipment. When a naval armament was first proposed, it was
objected to, as looking like forming a Naval Establishment. They then
told us it was expressly to repel the encroachments of the Algerines;
and that, as soon as peace was obtained with that power, the building of
them was to stop. Now they come forward, and avow a desire to have a
Navy Establishment. Thus originate evils which if not stopped early,
would spread and become dangerous. The only fair argument they have on
the subject is, that a Navy is now become necessary. Certain it is,
that, if they intend to have a Naval Establishment, to protect our
commerce and repel our injuries, three frigates will be very incompetent
to the object. He should not object to finishing them, and only because
so much had been expended on them already, but should ever oppose
fitting them for sea.

Mr. SWANWICK asked the gentleman what security there was in a peace with
Algiers? Could he say we were at peace with them now? Certainly we are
in a worse situation with that power now than then; we are parting with
our cash, (which makes it such a scarce article,) and yet we have no
benefit. Now it is said it is altogether a vision--a fancy or a dream.
Then gentlemen get up and ask what we are to do with three frigates? He
would answer, that so far as they went, they gave stability and
protection to our commerce. True, they were not thirty frigates, but he
believed, few as they were, they would save more than five times what
they cost in only one year. The richest ships we have are now taken and
robbed by every picaroon and pirate infesting the seas, because we have
no security; and he was surprised it was not worse. He had no doubt but
it would be an emolument; it would be a protection to the great revenue
we enjoy. That very trade, he said, which was subject to spoliation from
such petty robbers, paid into the revenue five or six millions of duty
annually. If this was still permitted to be encroached on, it was an
error, and it would soon be seen; and this was by a people called "free
and enlightened." He had no doubt they would soon be enlightened enough
to see they had done wrong. If gentlemen are against finishing these
frigates, why do they not come forward and declare it? Let us sell them,
said he, at public auction. What will be the effect if we have it told
at our wharves that we object to man them, because we have peace with
Algiers? He hoped they would be manned, or else have tacked to the bill,
that, when finished, they were to be sold for East Indiamen or
something. If that were gentlemen's wish, this was the time to come
forward and say so, and let it be put in the bill. He would ask, Was
there any thing in the name of Government, if it operated in this
manner? It was extraordinary conduct, indeed.

Gentlemen say they will not vote to finish these frigates, except the
repeal for manning is included. When it goes up to the Senate, may they
not say they will not vote to finish, except it be to man them? But, Mr.
S. said, he supposed gentlemen depended upon negotiation, if any thing
was wrong. What were the consequences of our late negotiation? We have
two things before us--treaty or ships. As for treaty, we have seen our
money sent across the Atlantic, and scattered a thousand ways: this was
throwing it into the ocean. He had heard of a Doge of Venice throwing a
ring into the sea to marry it: it seemed this money was gone for the
same purpose, and its use would be no better than the Doge's ring. He
thought the most complete treaty was, power to resist aggression. This
business of negotiation is very unprofitable. You may obtain fair
promises from foreign ministers, but very poor redress, if any.

The question on the amendment was put and lost--ayes 30, noes 51.

Mr. HARRISON moved for the committee to rise and report the bill without
amendments.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, it seemed that gentlemen were making a new business
of this. At the time it was brought forward, gentlemen voted in favor of
it, because the law was to be repealed. He voted to separate the bills,
because he conceived it would not be right to say to the Senate, You
shall do two things together, or neither. He hoped the committee would
rise, that the House may not have such power over the business as to
keep it back. If the other bill pass the Senate, said he, we can take up
this, and pass it in a short time.

Mr. PARKER thought this a most extraordinary procedure, to say we will
not pass the appropriation bill till we know the Senate have agreed to
that for repealing. He thought the Senate had as great a right to
exercise their discretion as that House. He never expected to have heard
such expressions. This was holding out a _dictum_ for their conduct:
this he thought neither fair nor proper.

Mr. VENABLE thought the bills were connected. He wished to vote merely
for finishing the frigates. He hoped the committee would not rise, but
that it might be so amended as to add the other bill to it. When he
voted for the appropriation, he said, he voted for it only in such a
manner as should be reconcilable with his judgment. If the gentleman
would waive his motion, and the House would so connect it, he should be
gratified.

Mr. HARRISON said, as the last gentleman's ideas were fully to his
purpose, he should withdraw his motion.

On motion being made for connecting the bills--

Mr. BUCK hoped it would not prevail. The only reason he saw to object,
(and he thought that very forcible,) was, that it discovered a jealousy
in that House of another branch of the Government, which he thought very
unjustifiable. He had voted for the repeal, but should not vote for the
appropriation. He thought they ought to act for themselves, without
reference to the other branch. Any member may vote which way he pleased,
but to say he would not vote for one without they go to the other, was
unfair. He could see no justice in such a mistrust from this branch of
the Legislature. Suppose, he said, the bills go to the Senate
separately, they may concur in the appropriation, and reject the appeal.
Even in that situation, were it to be left, the Executive could not man
the frigates, unless they could obtain further appropriations--to
obstruct which would be preferable, and would put it out of the power of
the Senate to embarrass the House.

Mr. VENABLE said his vote was given without any relation whatever to the
Senate. He thought any act passed by this House could not, when sent up
to the Senate, be termed disrespectful, for each branch had a right to
act for themselves. He was surprised to hear the gentleman last up say
he should not vote this appropriation; for he had heard him say, on a
former occasion, that he would vote an appropriation for any treaty,
law, or whatever should exist to call for it. Mr. V. confessed himself
to be of a very different opinion; for he always thought the House had a
discretionary power to grant it or not, but that gentleman had long said
it had none.

Mr. BUCK said, as his doctrines had been called in question, he must beg
indulgence to explain. He never said that the House had not a right to
judge on the propriety of appropriation in an existing law. He conceived
a treaty quite another thing. The PRESIDENT and Senate have a
constitutional power to make a treaty; in that, he said, he did advocate
that that House had no right to withhold appropriations; but in laws,
where the power of making appropriations rests partly in that House,
they had a right to grant or withhold. This, he said, he had always
held.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, this appeared to him a very unreasonable clamor in
behalf of the Senate. The gentleman last up seemed very careful not to
awaken the jealousy of the Senate. How could he know what part would
awaken that idea of disrespect? He had formed his mind to vote on the
subject, and surely every member might do so, without a fear of showing
disrespect to another branch. The gentleman had said that this House may
refuse to appropriate for a law. Now, suppose the Senate refuse to
repeal without we appropriate, we are then forced to choose one of two
evils. Very often, Mr. N. said, the House were obliged to appropriate
for a law, it may be, so far executed that they could not refuse.
Suppose the PRESIDENT should, after this, appoint officers to enlist men
for the frigates, how could the House refuse to pay them? While a law
existed to man these ships, it would be difficult to prevent it: it
would enable those who were friendly to the measure to carry it into
effect. He hoped, therefore, the House would not run the risk by leaving
it open to such possible intrusion.

Mr. S. SMITH thought this was a very unfair way of doing business, but
he had been used to such things. He thought this form of _tacking_ was
very improper and unfair. It had been observed that we were the most
free and enlightened people, but he thought those who advocated these
measures proved the very contrary.

Mr. SWANWICK said, it appeared to him a kind of Legislative stratagem.
The whole intention of the business could be easily discovered. If there
was nothing improper, why should they fear to trust the Senate with it?
Having the yeas and nays on both bills, gentlemen could not easily
excuse them for voting for the repeal, as it would go out into the
country that many had voted contrary to their arguments. Thus we are
forced to vote against our own opinion, or not have the frigates
finished. He could plainly see that gentlemen meant to defeat the
object, and, he thought, in a very unfair way.

Mr. W. LYMAN spoke much of the impolicy and impropriety of the measures
of those gentlemen who supported naval preparations. Some time back, he
said, those very gentlemen were advising us to cultivate our land, and
not regard commerce--it was a broken reed to depend on; but now, they
want to put the nation to an enormous expense to protect that commerce
they thought so lightly of! The frigates would cost more than double
the money which was at first estimated: this would be a disgrace to any
nation. The whole process of the business had been bad, and he had no
doubt but the estimate now before the House would be found deficient.
Though he thought a small Navy would be useful, yet, until he saw its
process conducted more fairly, and with more discretion, he should not
vote a shilling to it: for the waste of money which had been discovered
in this, had given him a distaste to it.

A remark having fallen from Mr. L., on the constitutionality of this
appropriation--

Mr. W. SMITH said, that, what the gentleman observed, only respected an
Army. The constitution says, an appropriation for the Army shall not be
made for more than two years, but it said not a word about restricting a
Navy; and it is certain that the framers of the constitution had a view
to a Navy, as in three different parts it makes mention of it. [Here Mr.
S. read those parts from the constitution.] The question was not whether
to repeal the law or not, but whether the appropriation bill was to be
_tacked_ to the repeal. When before taken up, a majority voted for two
bills, and they are accordingly reported, and now the two are to be
united. This, said he, is directing the Senate to vote a certain way,
because this House saw it right. This was a kind of coercion which would
oblige them (if they support their independence, which they certainly
will) to reject the repeal. This, he said, was a spirit which every
gentleman in the House felt. He therefore hoped there would be two
bills.

Mr. GALLATIN did not conceive this a question on the constitution; it
was not on the power of the House as to the subject of appropriation,
but merely on connecting the two bills. He conceived it perfectly right
and proper to connect them, because the subject of them was the same. It
was not novel: appropriation and repeal had before been connected.
Indeed, he thought it improper to hold the Senate in any consideration
at all. He should not be guided by any apprehensions of what they would
do. The gentleman last up had said, it was unfair to connect them, as it
would oblige members who opposed one to vote for both. Now, a majority
will always decide, and those in the minority will always be affected.
That gentleman would rather take a question on each; but Mr. G. said he
would rather on both together. But both will not be material, more than
in a certain degree. He further observed that a decision had been come
to to keep the subjects apart. This, Mr. G. said, was only in order to
give leave to the committee to report one or two bills. But that could
not now affect the decision. The House might now do as they pleased. He
looked upon the first act of the law as rather explanatory of the other.
A law passed last year for the equipment of the frigates. The first law
expired as to the manning them. It is therefore only for fear the word
"equipment" should be so construed as to mean "manning," that we wish a
connection of these bills.

He thought it more candid and fair to have both the objects before the
Senate at one time than to separate them. If they think it an attack
upon their privileges they would act consistently therewith.

Mr. WILLIAMS could not see where the difference was, whether the bills
were apart or not. He was sorry any jealousy should be discovered
towards another branch; if the amendment were to go to the Senate they
had power to reject any part. The next Congress would take a view of the
subject, and do what they thought right, as the frigates would not be
fit to be manned till then.

Mr. BUCK again repeated his objections to uniting the bills.

Mr. N. SMITH thought there could be no good reasons for uniting the
bills. There had not yet been any appropriation made, and the money was
nearly expended; he thought the appropriation should be passed
immediately, as he had no doubt but both Houses would ultimately unite
in this object. If, therefore, any money was to be appropriated, let it
be done, and then if the House thought proper to agree to the repeal, it
could be done, as no delay ought to be made.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) said the other day, that
he would not, under any situation, vote the supply until he knew whether
there was any intention to fit them for sea or not. This, Mr. S. thought
the principal point; but except that gentleman, with others, thought the
ships were to remain in the same situation as at present, it certainly
was necessary to agree to the appropriations; this was voted on all
hands, though some could not agree to go all lengths. He did not believe
many could be found in the House who would wish them to remain and rot
on the stocks; but for gentlemen to say they would not agree to grant
the supply except the other part was repealed, he thought wrong. It was
true, they had the power to withhold even appropriations for the
PRESIDENT's salary, Senate, &c., but if such opposition was supported,
Government could not long exist. That House had power over the Senate,
and, _vice versa_, the Senate over that House--each had a right to think
and do as they pleased, but it would be wrong in one to curtail the
privilege of the other by an ill-timed opposition; this was merely to
show a spleen which could not but be to the detriment and delay of
business.

Mr. W. SMITH rose to answer some observations made by Mr. GALLATIN and
Mr. VENABLE, and proceeded to show the impropriety of tacking the bills;
he said it would produce insurmountable difficulties. He never could
agree to this _tortus discordans_ being sent up to the Senate.

Mr. VENABLE answered. The question was then put for tacking the two
bills, and carried, ayes 41, noes 36.

The committee then rose, and the House took up the amendments reported
by the Committee of the Whole. Whereupon, the first amendment reported
by the Committee of the Whole House, for adding a new section, to be the
second section of the said bill, being read, in the words following, to
wit:

      "_And be it further enacted_, That the sum of ---- dollars
      be, and the same is hereby appropriated for the purpose of
      finishing the frigates now building, called the United
      States, Constitution, and Constellation; and that the same
      be paid out of the surplus of revenue and income, which may
      accrue to the end of the year one thousand seven hundred
      and ninety-seven, after satisfying the objects for which
      appropriations have been heretofore made."

Mr. W. SMITH said, as the question would first be taken on the amendment
and then upon the resolution as amended, a member who wished to vote for
the finishing of the frigates, but not for the repeal, would not have an
opportunity of showing his sentiments by the yeas and nays. In order
that members who thought with him might have an opportunity of showing
their vote, he called for the previous question upon the proposition.

The SPEAKER declaring that this motion was not in order, Mr. W. SMITH
called for the yeas and nays upon the amendment.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, rather than not obtain an appropriation for
finishing the frigates, he should vote in favor of the amendment, though
he was of the same opinion with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
W. SMITH) as to the unfairness of the proceeding.

Mr. DENT was of the same opinion.

Mr. MUHLENBERG said as the amendment stood annexed to the other bill, he
should vote against it; though, if the subject had continued in a
separate bill, he should have voted in favor of it.

The question was then taken on the amendment, and decided in the
affirmative, 59 to 25, as follows:

      YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
      Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Thomas
      Claiborne, John Clopton, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William
      Cooper, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, William Findlay, Jesse
      Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, Ezekiel
      Gilbert, James Gillespie, Henry Glenn, Christopher Greenup,
      Andrew Gregg, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N.
      Havens, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, John Wilkes Kittera,
      George Leonard, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Samuel
      Lyman, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James
      Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, John Patton, John
      Richards, Robert Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Samuel
      Sitgreaves, Thompson J. Skinner, Jeremiah Smith, Israel
      Smith, Isaac Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sprigg,
      Zephaniah Swift, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
      Abraham Venable, John Williams, and Richard Winn.

      NAYS.--Theophilus Bradbury, Daniel Buck, Samuel W. Dana,
      James Davenport, George Ege, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster,
      Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper,
      Thomas Hartley, John Heath, William Hindman, Francis
      Malbone, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray,
      Josiah Parker, John Read, Samuel Sewall, Nathaniel Smith,
      Samuel Smith, William Smith, John Swanwick, George
      Thatcher, and Peleg Wadsworth.

The bill was then recommitted to a Committee of the Whole, in order to
have the blank for the sum to be appropriated for finishing the vessels
inserted, and was filled with $172,000.


TUESDAY, February 21.

_Negotiation with the Mediterranean Powers._

Mr. W. SMITH moved that the House should go into a committee on the
business, which would require the galleries to be closed; the SPEAKER
accordingly put the question for going into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill to authorize a negotiation with the Mediterranean Powers,
which, being carried, the galleries were cleared accordingly.

After the galleries were cleared, the bill was agreed to with
amendments, and ordered for a third reading to-morrow.

On motion that the House come to the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That the injunction of secrecy upon the
      members of this House, so far as it relates to that part of
      the communication made by the President, by his Message of
      January 9, which has been printed, be taken off, and that
      all future debates and proceedings thereon be had with open
      doors."

A motion was made to insert, after the words "be taken off," "together
with the letter of Messrs. Barlow and Donaldson, of April 5, 1796." The
question on the amendment was taken by yeas and nays, and lost--yeas 19,
nays 65.

The main question was then taken by yeas and nays, and resulted--yeas
53, nays 36.

      Reports of the Secretary of State, relative to the present
      situation of affairs with the Dey and Regency of Algiers,
      accompanying the following confidential Message from the
      President of the United States, received the 9th of
      January, 1797:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives_:

      Herewith I lay before you, in confidence, reports from the
      Departments of State and the Treasury, by which you will
      see the present situation of our affairs with the Dey and
      Regency of Algiers.

                          G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, January 9, 1797.

      _To the President of the United States, the Secretary of
      State respectfully makes the following brief representation
      of the affairs of the United States, in relation to
      Algiers_:

      When Colonel Humphreys left America, in April, 1795, he was
      accompanied by Joseph Donaldson, Esq., who had been
      appointed Consul for Tunis and Tripoli; and him Colonel
      Humphreys was authorized to employ in negotiating a Treaty
      with Algiers, while he should proceed himself to France,
      for the purpose of obtaining the co-operation of that
      Government in this negotiation.

      They arrived at Gibraltar on the 17th of May. Colonel
      Humphreys concluded that it was expedient for Mr. Donaldson
      to go first to Alicant, rather than Algiers, in order to be
      near at hand, to ascertain facts and profit of occasions.
      He gave him instructions accordingly; and having also
      instructed Mr. Simpson, our Consul at Gibraltar, to renew
      our peace with the Emperor of Morocco, Colonel Humphreys
      sailed from Gibraltar the 24th of May, and arrived at Havre
      de Grace on the 26th of June; from whence he set off
      immediately for Paris. The object of his mission was
      communicated by our Minister, Colonel Monroe, to the
      Committee of Public Safety. On the 1st of July he had
      received only a verbal answer, that the French Government
      was disposed to interest itself, and to do every thing in
      its power, to promote the accomplishment of our wishes on
      the subject in question. On the 28th, assurances were
      received that immediate measures should be taken for giving
      particular instructions to the agents of the Republic, to
      use its influence in co-operating with us. The multiplicity
      of affairs with which the officers of Government were
      occupied, and the getting from London a sum of money
      necessary to purchase the usual peace presents, prevented a
      conclusion of this arrangement at Paris until September. It
      had been judged expedient, by Colonel Humphreys and Colonel
      Monroe, that Joel Barlow should be employed in the
      negotiation with the Barbary States, and his consent had
      been obtained. By the 11th of September, all the writings
      on the part of Colonel Humphreys were prepared for Mr.
      Barlow, to proceed with the instructions and powers from
      the Government of the French Republic to its agents in
      Barbary, in favor of our negotiation.

      Colonel Humphreys left Paris the 12th of September, and
      reached Havre the 14th, where he found the master and mate
      of the United States brig Sophia, both sick with fevers.
      While waiting there impatiently for their recovery, he
      received intelligence from our Consul at Marseilles, that
      Mr. Donaldson had concluded a Treaty of Peace with the Dey
      of Algiers; nevertheless, Colonel Humphreys thought it
      expedient that Mr. Barlow should proceed with the presents
      prepared and preparing at Paris; for, if not needed at
      Algiers, they would be wanted in the negotiation with Tunis
      and Tripoli.

      About the 5th of October, Colonel Humphreys sailed from
      Havre, and after a stormy passage of more than forty days,
      arrived at Lisbon on the 17th of November. There he found
      Captain O'Brien, who had arrived about the 1st of October,
      with the Treaty with Algiers.

      On the 3d of September Mr. Donaldson arrived at Algiers,
      and on the 5th the Treaty was concluded, and the peace
      presents immediately given, by a loan. Mr. Donaldson,
      knowing that funds had been lodged in London to answer his
      stipulations, engaged to make the payments in three or four
      months.

      Colonel Humphreys had received advice, under date of the
      30th July, from the Messrs. Barings, in London, to whom the
      funds had been remitted, that, having made progress in the
      sales of the United States' stock, they should hold, at his
      disposal, the whole of the value of $800,000, meaning to
      furnish, by anticipation, the value of that part which
      remained unsold, if the service of the United States
      required it. Colonel Humphreys, counting on the money as
      always ready after this period, sent Captain O'Brien from
      Lisbon to London, in the brig Sophia, to receive it. Owing
      to contrary winds, she did not leave Lisbon till the 24th
      of December. The other details, relative to the pecuniary
      transactions, appear in the report of the Secretary of the
      Treasury.

      The disappointments in the pecuniary negotiations, put the
      Treaty in jeopardy; the Dey threatened to abandon it, and
      it was with extreme difficulty that it was prevented. Mr.
      Barlow did not arrive at Alicant until February, 1796,
      where he proposed to wait the arrival of the funds: but,
      after a little time, his intelligence from Algiers showing
      that our affairs were in a critical situation, he
      determined to go thither immediately, with the hope of
      soothing the Dey. He arrived there the 4th of March; they
      had before prolonged the time to the 8th of April for the
      payment of the stipulated sums. On the 3d of this month the
      Dey declared what should be his final determination--that
      in eight days Mr. Barlow and Mr. Donaldson should leave
      Algiers; and if, in thirty days after, the money was not
      paid, the Treaty should be at an end, and his cruisers
      should bring in American vessels. Under these
      circumstances, and as the last hope of saving the Treaty,
      they were induced to offer the present of a frigate--this
      fortunately succeeded. For the particulars of this
      transaction, the Secretary begs leave to refer to the
      enclosed letter from Messrs. Barlow and Donaldson.

      Colonel Humphreys not deeming himself authorized to confirm
      this promise of a frigate, referred the matter to the
      Executive of the United States; and for this end despatched
      Captain O'Brien, in the brig Sophia, to America. There was
      evidently no alternative; and the promise was confirmed.

      The frigate is now building in Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
      and is expected to be finished in the spring. Captain
      O'Brien returned to Lisbon, where he arrived on the ---- of
      July. Colonel Humphreys had advantageously negotiated bills
      on London for $225,000. This sum was embarked on board the
      Sophia, and, on the 3d of August, Captain O'Brien set sail
      for Algiers. He has not since been heard of, and there is
      room to fear that some misfortune has befallen him. The
      money was insured at a small premium, against the danger of
      the seas; against all risks they demanded so high a premium
      as Colonel Humphreys judged it inexpedient to give, seeing
      the Sophia was a vessel of the United States, having a
      special passport from the President, as well as a passport
      in the Turkish language, under the seal of the Dey of
      Algiers.

      Such arrangements have been made by Mr. Barlow and Mr.
      Donaldson, at Algiers and Leghorn, as will doubtless insure
      the payment of the $400,000 originally expected from the
      latter place; and the same house have become engaged to the
      Dey and Regency for the residue of the money due as the
      price of peace, without which he would not agree to the
      redemption of the captives.

           The Secretary of the Treasury estimates
           these further sums to be provided to fulfil
           the terms of the Treaty                      $255,759
           For two years' annuities to the Dey            99,246
           To which are to be added the 10,000
           sequins promised by Mr. Barlow and Mr.
           Donaldson, mentioned in their letter           18,000
           And the expenses of the captives performing
           quarantine at Marseilles, and transporting
           them to America, estimated by
           the Consul at Marseilles, at about              6,500
                                                         -------
                                                         379,505

      On the 31st ultimo I received a letter from Mr. Barlow,
      dated the 13th of July, informing that the agent, Mr.
      Famin, at Tunis, who had been recommended to him by the
      French Consul Herculias, had concluded, with the Bey of
      that Regency, a truce for six months, from the 15th day of
      June last, and that without any presents.

                          TIMOTHY PICKERING,
                          _Secretary of State._

      DEPARTMENT OF STATE, January 6, 1797.


WEDNESDAY, February 22.

_Mediterranean Powers._

The bill for making appropriations to defray the expense of negotiations
with Mediterranean powers, was also read the third time. The provisions
of this act, (which has been the subject of the various discussions
which have lately taken place with closed galleries) are to the
following effect:

      "That the President of the United States be, and he is
      hereby authorized to apply a sum not exceeding 255,759
      dollars and three cents, to the expenses which may have
      been incurred in any negotiations with Mediterranean
      powers, beyond the sums heretofore appropriated; and that
      the said sum of 255,759 dollars and three cents, be, and
      the same is hereby appropriated for that purpose; and that
      a further sum not exceeding 96,246 dollars and 63 cents,
      be, and the same is hereby appropriated for discharging the
      two first years' annuity to the Dey and Regency of Algiers,
      pursuant to treaty, in addition to the gum appropriated for
      that purpose by the act of the sixth of May, 1796."

On the question being put that the bill do pass, Mr. GREENUP said he
never liked the bill in any shape whatever; he would therefore express
it now. He then called for the yeas and nays, which were taken, and
stood ayes 63, noes 19, as follow:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Theophilus Bradbury,
      Nathan Bryan, Daniel Buck, Dempsey Burges, Thomas
      Claiborne, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William Cooper, James
      Davenport, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, George Ege, William
      Findlay, Dwight Foster, Jesse Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman,
      jr., Albert Gallatin, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn,
      Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper,
      Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, Jonathan N. Havens,
      Thomas Henderson, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell, John
      Wilkes Kittera, George Leonard, Matthew Locke, Samuel
      Lyman, James Madison, Francis Malbone, John Milledge,
      Andrew Moore, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, John Nicholas,
      Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Elisha R.
      Potter, John Richards, Robert Rutherford, John S.
      Sherburne, Samuel Sitgreaves, Thompson J. Skinner, Jeremiah
      Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Israel Smith, Isaac Smith, Richard
      Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sprigg, Zephaniah Swift, George
      Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Philip Van
      Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, and John
      Williams.

      NAYS.--David Bard, Thomas Blount, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel
      Christie, John Clopton, James Gillespie, Christopher
      Greenup, John Hathorn, John Heath, James Holland, Andrew
      Jackson, George Jackson, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay,
      Nathaniel Macon, William Strudwick, John Swanwick, Abraham
      Venable, and Richard Winn.

On motion of Mr. GALLATIN, the title was changed to "a bill to authorize
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to apply further sums to defray the
expenses of the negotiation with the Dey and Regency of Algiers."[11]

_John Cleves Symmes._

On motion of Mr. GALLATIN, the House took up the bill in addition to an
act for granting certain lands to John Cleves Symmes and his associates;
when

Mr. COIT moved to strike out the first section. His object, he said, was
to gain information, particularly with respect to the survey.

Mr. GALLATIN (who was Chairman of the Committee which made the report)
gave a concise history of the business; which satisfied Mr. COIT, who
withdrew his motion; and the bill was ordered to be read a third time
to-morrow.

The particulars of this case are as follows:

John Cleves Symmes and his associates entered into a contract with the
United States in the year 1787, for a million acres of land in the
North-western Territory, at a time when the geography of that country
was not well understood. The tract was to extend twenty miles up the
Great Miami to the Little Miami; but when this line came to be measured,
it was found that it cut the Little Miami in several places on land
which had been reserved by Virginia at the cession of this Territory to
the United States. Mr. Symmes was down in the country before he knew the
line thus drawn would thus cut into the lands of Virginia. The first
thing he did was to take possession of the country which is between Fort
Washington and the Little Miami, and to sell as much as he could of it.
General St. Clair, the Governor of that Territory, threatened to drive
Mr. Symmes and the settlers off this territory to which he had no right.
The innocent settlers, who had purchased the land of Mr. Symmes, sent
forward representations of their case to the PRESIDENT, which, together
with the representations of the Governor, produced an act to change the
boundary line of the purchase, which was passed April 12, 1792. This act
describes the boundary line of the tract of land to be between the two
Miamis and the Ohio. Mr. Ludlow was sent to survey it in 1793, when it
was found, that instead of there being one million of acres, there were
only five hundred and forty-three thousand nine hundred and fifty, which
was duly surveyed, and the survey lodged in the Treasury Office on the
10th of January, 1794. Here arose the first difficulty. The act passed
to change the boundary line could not take place without the consent of
Mr. Symmes. In consequence, the law was said to be enacted at the
request of Mr. Symmes. In 1794, Mr. S. had not made any request,
consequently the law was a nullity. He might at that time have said, he
would not have the land upon any other than the original contract, and
that it was the business of the United States to make up the deficiency;
and, if he had so acted, it is probable Congress would have been obliged
to have found him one million of acres of land, agreeably to his
contract; but, at that time, lands were not raised to so high a price as
they were now, and Mr. S. did not think it necessary to avail himself of
his contract. On the 11th April, 1792, a petition was presented in his
name, stating, that from an advance in the price of certificates,
resulted the impossibility of fulfilling his contract, and prayed that
an abatement might be made in the price of the land. On the 27th
September, 1794, instead of saying he would not abide by the new
boundary, he requests an alteration may be made in the boundary.
Notwithstanding this request, Mr. S. now says, he did not know any thing
of the survey, though more than nine months since it was made. At first
sight, it would be supposed the contract was void for want of
fulfilment; but as he says he never received from the public a
counterpart of the contract (though it is generally supposed he had in
some way got possession of a copy, but no proof existing of it,) the
claim was not forfeited. A circumstance was mentioned which seemed to
convey a strong supposition that Mr. S. was acquainted with the survey.
The day following the request he had made for the new boundary, was
issued to him a patent for three hundred thousand acres, referring to
that survey. Mr. S. now objects to the releasement which was given of
his first purchase as not being complete. It was stated that he had
taken possession of land to which he was no way entitled. The necessity
of the act being immediately passed appeared from an advertisement
(which Mr. GALLATIN read from a newspaper of that country) inviting
persons to come and purchase, under an assurance that his original
purchase would be completed. Mr. G. said that he had been offered some
part of the land at a dollar an acre; he was informed that it would sell
for two to settlers. Mr. G. said he knew it to be very capital land; and
if the four hundred and fifty thousand acres which remained would sell
for nine hundred thousand dollars, while he only gave three hundred
thousand for the whole, he would have made a good bargain.


THURSDAY, February 23.

_Direct and Indirect Taxes._

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.

Mr. GALLATIN hoped that the motion would not prevail. He believed he was
the only person who had said, that he was not desirous that the bill
laying a direct tax should pass this session. For it was true, that,
although he was a strong advocate for a direct tax--although he thought
a sufficient permanent revenue could not be drawn from any other source,
yet he did not wish the law to pass during the present session; and the
reason was, because he had not a sufficient reliance upon his own
opinion, to wish a subject of this sort to come into being against the
opinion of so many members of this House as appeared to be opposed to
it. When the United States shall think it necessary to go into the
measure, he trusted it would pass with great unanimity. At present, he
doubted whether a majority of the country was not against the measure,
especially when he not only saw so great a division in that House, but
apparently a local division, as he believed only four members East of
Hudson's River, and but five South of Virginia had voted for the
measure, by which it appeared to be a mode desired only by the Middle
States. Until, therefore, gentlemen from those parts had returned home
and consulted their constituents upon the subject; until he knew that
the law could be carried into effect with more unanimity than at this
time appeared, he did not wish to press it. He was willing, therefore,
to take all the blame which was imputable to this circumstance upon
himself. He never wished the powers of Congress to be exercised in a way
which should not meet with pretty general concurrence. Yet, had he
thought the situation of the United States had been such, that
additional revenue was absolutely necessary to support the public
credit, and it could not have been conveniently raised from any other
source, every other consideration would have given way to that
necessity. But he did not think that any thing which had been said by
the gentleman from South Carolina showed that there would be any
deficiency in the revenue for the present, which would require
additional taxes to supply it.

He would just observe, that the great argument in favor of direct
taxes--an argument which had almost wrought conviction upon the mind of
the gentleman from South Carolina himself--was the uncertainty of a
revenue derived from commerce; and yet, from this circumstance, the
friends of indirect taxes wish to extend that plan to the utmost, and
raise every thing from it. He should have drawn different conclusions;
and from that uncertainty, he should have wished never to have gone
beyond those bounds which they knew were safe.

As to the receipts of 1797, Mr. G. said, we had well ascertained them,
because they arose from the importations of 1796, which they knew
amounted to 6,200,000 dollars, and which sum, with the internal duties,
would be fully adequate to the expenses of the Government for this year.
Yet some gentlemen thought the calculation too close, and therefore the
additional duties before them had been consented to, which he believed
every one must acknowledge would be fully equal to any deficiency that
could possibly arise. The arguments of the gentleman from South Carolina
applied to the year 1798. He said we did not know what might be the
amount of the importations of the present year; that it might be less
than last year, and therefore, that revenue ought to be provided to
supply the deficiency, if there should be any. The arguments would be
good, if the gentleman's data were true; but he had forgotten that the
expenses of 1798 would be less than those of the present year by 700,000
dollars, including not only the current expenses, but the instalment of
the Dutch debts, which in that year would only be 100,000 dollars. The
instalment this year is 400,000, so that in this item there will be a
difference of 240,000 dollars; in the next place, the 280,000 dollars
which this year has been agreed to be paid to the Dey and Regency of
Algiers, will not occur again; and also, the 180,000 dollars
appropriated for finishing the frigate, would not be to provide another
year. These three items made the 700,000 dollars which he had mentioned.
In addition he would add, that this year there had been a charge of
200,000 dollars for the defence of the frontier in 1795; but perhaps
something might be wanted in that quarter another year, and therefore he
would pass over that sum. But he thought there could be no danger of a
want of revenue in the year 1798.

Mr. G. said, he would not pretend to say that it would not be desirable
to increase the revenue, in order that they might pay a part of such
instalments of the foreign debt as would become due after the year 1801.
Certainly the sooner our debt could be paid, the better; but he meant
only to show that there was no necessity for increasing the revenue for
1798. If it were necessary to raise additional revenue, it would be for
two principal objects, the payment of the Dutch debt and the eight per
cent. deferred stock; but as these did not become due till the year
1801, they were not under the necessity of providing the means for it at
present.

During the next session, Mr. G. said, they should have time to compare
the two systems of taxes together, and to discover which offered the
best and most permanent sources of revenue. For the reasons he had
given, he should be opposed to the motion.

Mr. W. SMITH said, he should not adduce many arguments to show the
propriety of advancing the duty upon this article any more than that
upon any other; but he wished to bring before the committee a true
statement of the receipts and expenditures of the United States, in
order to show what sum of money would probably be wanted to answer the
demands of the United States. As he differed considerably from the
gentleman from Pennsylvania as to our real wants, he considered it as
his duty to lay this statement before the committee. He had investigated
the subject with as much accuracy as possible. He had attended to the
documents which had been laid before them, to the laws which would
probably pass this session, and to the probable increase of revenue. The
result of this examination was, that there would be a deficiency of
about a million of dollars. To what the additional imposts already
agreed to would amount, he could not say, but he believed they would
make 200,000 dollars, which would leave a deficiency of 800,000 dollars.
He made the following statement:


_Expenses of 1797._

Civil list,                                      $634,322
Military and Naval Establishment and pensions,  1,284,532
Deficiency of 1796,                               201,000
Algerine appropriation,                           376,500
Interest of Domestic Debt,                      3,471,972
Interest on Dutch debt,                           614,241
Instalments do do. 1797,                          400,000
Premium remitt. &c.                                50,000
Appropriations for frigate,                       171,000
                                                ---------
                                                7,213,567
                                                =========


_Revenues of 1797._

Impost,                                        $5,588,961
Internal revenues,                                337,255
Post Office,                                       35,000
Bank stock,                                       150,000
Stock redeemed,                                    88,636
Sundries,                                             746
                                                ---------
                                                6,200,598
Additional imposts in 1797,                       200,000
                                                ---------
                                                6,400,598
Probable deficiency of revenue,                   812,969
                                                ---------
                                                7,213,567
                                                =========

It would be observed, Mr. S. said, that the gentlemen from Pennsylvania
and Maryland, had calculated the impost at 6,200,000 dollars, whilst he
made it only at 5,588,961, which he took from the Secretary of the
Treasury's statement, and he believed this was the safest calculation.
He would not go into any very long argument on this subject, because it
had frequently been under discussion.

Mr. GALLATIN inquired from what document Mr. SMITH took his
calculations?

Mr. W. SMITH answered, from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury,
which was calculated upon a permanent plan. In calculations on the
subject of revenue, the largest amounts should not be taken. It was not
policy in gentlemen to adopt that plan; they should make allowances for
deficiencies and accidents. The situation of this country at present
required it, and it would be safe, prudent, and discreet, to do so. The
Secretary of the Treasury had estimated the internal revenue at 337,255
dollars, while those gentlemen made it 469,579. This they stated from
the revenue of last year, which it was probable would be considerably
more than this. He thought there was as much reason for taking one as
the other statement; and the Government would be exposed to hazard and
danger, unless allowances were made for deficiencies.

The deficiency, according to his calculation, was 1,012,969 dollars, and
after deducting from that sum 200,000 for the additional duties in the
bill before them, there would remain a balance of 812,969 dollars.
Admitting the gentleman's own statement to be true, there would still be
a deficiency of 100,000 dollars, and this without making any allowance
whatever for accidents and occurrences which will always happen, without
making any provision for the purchase of the public debt, which might at
this time be purchased to great advantage. If there had been money in
the Treasury for the purpose, instead of paying the debt at par, it
might have been bought up at 16 or 17s. in the pound. And he was of
opinion, from the present situation of things, the public debt would
remain low, and that a surplus in the Treasury might be well employed in
purchasing it.

So much for the revenue and expenses of the present year. With respect
to 1798, there was no necessity to go much into that subject. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania had estimated the instalment of the Dutch
debt, payable in this year, at 160,000 dollars only; but he asked
whether it would be wise to pay only that sum? And whether it had not
been in the contemplation of that gentleman, as well as others, to pay
as much as they could yearly? He knew they should not be obliged to pay
more; but he believed it would be a wise policy to pay an equal sum
every year. That gentleman made another deduction of 280,000 dollars,
which had been granted to the Dey and Regency of Algiers this year; but
might they not expect items which they did not contemplate, to this
amount? Contingencies, he said, occurred, which always swelled the
expenses greater than were contemplated. There was always something of
an extraordinary nature occurring to call for money; either an Indian
war, or insurrection, depredations of foreign powers, or attacks by the
Algerines. There was no guarding with certainty against them. The next
deduction was 100,000 dollars for the frigates. Whether this would be
saved or not, was uncertain. The next House might agree to go on with
the frigates.

Upon the whole, Mr. S. said, it would be prudent to provide a
sufficiency of revenue, and there was no prospect of getting it from any
other than the objects contained in the bill before them. A land tax was
agreed to be laid aside for the present, as gentlemen from the Eastward
seemed wholly against it, and those of the Middle States seemed to have
grown lukewarm upon the subject. The duty on stamps, which would have
provided considerable revenue, was also laid aside. They had agreed to
lay low duties upon distilled domestic spirits; no increase could
therefore be expected from that quarter. They could, then, only resort
to such articles of impost as would be likely, from their general demand
and other circumstances, to produce additional revenue. As, therefore,
no prospect appeared of getting other revenue than by the article before
them, he should be compelled to agree, though with reluctance, to the
advance of the duty on sugar.

With respect to their lands, they had authorized public stock to be
received in payment; and, though he thought this a very valuable
regulation, both for facilitating the sale of the land, and for paying
off the debt, the lands, on this account, would not produce much cash
into the Treasury.

Mr. S. SMITH said, very early in the present session, he read, with some
attention, the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of
direct taxes. He cast his eye upon certain articles which he thought
proper subjects upon which to raise further sums from indirect sources,
among which were salt, sugar, tea, and the whole of the 10 per cent.
class of goods; he communicated his sentiments to other gentlemen, and
they had been brought forward.

He supposed the House would have gone into a system of direct taxes.
This he had always considered as a difficult subject, and he never
could, himself, form a plan adequate to effect it; but he was desirous
that the subject should have been taken up, that in case of extremity it
might be called into operation. He did not think any immediate wants of
the revenue required this tax to be put into execution, but he wished to
take it into consideration, to see what could be done with it. He had
still his doubts whether it could be carried into execution; if it
could, it would doubtless form a valuable source of revenue, which could
not be injured. He had no doubt, however, of the present revenue being
equal to our present wants. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. W.
SMITH) had taken his calculations from the report of the Secretary of
the Treasury; but the Secretary went into a permanent calculation for a
period of 18 years, in the course of which he calculated the sinking of
the whole debt.

The trade of 1796, Mr. S. said, would give nearly a million of dollars;
of course there could be no apprehensions upon the minds of gentlemen
that the receipts of 1797 would not be equal to the wants of Government.
The tax upon sugar would produce 300,000 dollars. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) was correct on this subject.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. W. SMITH) had said, it was not
wise to calculate upon the highest returns; but Mr. S. SMITH said it
was right to calculate upon a preceding year, and when they knew that
there would be received in this year from 700,000 dollars to one
million, there could be no doubt of the year 1798 falling far short of
that sum. For he was not one of those who thought the revenue arising
from this year would be much inferior to that arising from the last.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) had supposed that the
British spoliations had not affected our revenue, but that those of the
French would be severely felt. He saw no difference between them, and
believed they would be felt alike in proportion to their extent. [Mr.
HARPER explained.] He believed the United States would only consume a
certain portion of the goods imported; the rest would be re-exported,
and the drawback received upon them; and, as he did not believe the
consumption of the United States had been lessened, it would follow that
it had been the re-exportation which had been diminished, and, of
course, that it would not be the duties which would be decreased, but
the drawbacks. This being the case, little was to be apprehended from a
defalcation of the revenue this year.

Indeed, he was of opinion, that the revenue arising from the present
year, would be equal to any preceding year. The expenses of 1797 would
be as follows:


ESTIMATE FOR THE YEAR 1797.

Instalment due on part of the Dutch debt, with interest
  on the whole debt, together about            $ 992,000
Annual 8 per cent. and 6 per cent. stock,      2,324,175
Annual interest on 3 per cent. do.               587,926
    Ditto on 5-1/2 per cent. do.                 101,689
    Ditto on 4-1/2 per cent. do.                   7,920
    Ditto on supposed unfunded debt,              78,261
    Ditto on Bank loans,                         372,200
                                             -----------
                                               4,463,971
  Internal expenditures (as below)             2,255,255
                                             -----------
                                              $6,719,226
                                             ===========

Civil List, Mint, and Diplomatic, (agreeably to the
  Secretary's report, estimated on the session of six
  months,)                                      $564,753
Deduct savings arising on the session of
  four months only,                               52,800
                                             -----------
                                                 511,953
Bill for foreign intercourse,                     40,000
Light-houses,                                     45,647
Miscellaneous claims,                             12,000
                                             -----------
                                                $609,600
                                             ===========

MILITARY DEPARTMENT.

Pay of four regiments and artillery corps,      $256,450
Subsistence,                                     236,900
Clothing,                                         75,000
Bounties,                                         16,000
Hospital Department,                              25,000
Ordnance                                          40,000
                                             -----------
                                                 649,350

Amount brought forward,                         $649,350
Two instructors,                                   1,450
Quartermaster's Department,                      150,000
Defensive protection,                             60,000
Indian Department,                                90,000
Contingencies of War Department,                  15,000
Repairing fortifications,                         20,000
Military Pensions,                                93,350
Naval Department,                                190,000
Balance due on Algerine business,                376,505
                                              ----------
Internal expenses of 1797,                    $2,255,255

The expenses of the Quartermaster's Department would in future be
considerably lessened; for, said Mr. S., heretofore great expense had
been incurred by land carriage, which in future would be avoided, as the
forage would all be conveyed by water. Indeed it had not been an unusual
thing for the horses employed in conveying forage from one post to
another, to eat the whole of it in their journey to and from their
destination, and some horses had been known to die from want on the
road. The conveyance being now by water, a great destruction of horses
would be prevented, and he doubted not that one hundred thousand dollars
would be saved under this head.


FRIDAY, February 24.

_Amy Dardin._

The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of Claims,
of the sixth ultimo, to whom was referred the petition of Amy Dardin,
which lay on the table; whereupon, the said report was read at the
Clerk's table, in the words following, to wit:

      "That the most important, and all the material facts
      respecting this claim, are stated in the former report of
      the committee appointed to consider the said petition. To
      that report the committee now ask leave to refer. Whatever
      justice there might originally have been in this claim
      against the United States, it is now, and for many years
      past has been, as clearly within the statutes of
      limitation, as a multitude of others, which have been
      rejected. The committee regret that no relief can, with
      propriety, be granted to the petitioner, upon her
      application. So many evils would result from a suspension
      of the limitation act, for the admission of claims similar
      to the one under consideration, the committee cannot
      recommend that measure to be adopted. They are of opinion
      the prayer of the petition ought not to be granted."

The question was taken that the House do agree to the said report, and
passed in the negative--34 to 27; when Mr. GALLATIN moved that a
committee be appointed to bring in a bill in favor of the petitioner.
This motion occasioned some debate.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he rejoiced in the vote which had passed in respect
to the report before them, as it was a precedent against the act of
limitation. When a claim was clear, it was a denial of justice not to
pay the debt. He did not think it was more justifiable in a Government
to refuse to pay its debts, than it was in individuals to do so. Though
an act of limitation had been passed, they ought only to consider it, in
a modified sense, as a guard against fraud; but, in cases where they
were convinced a debt was justly due, he did not see upon good
principles they could refuse to pay it. He was sure there was not a
member on that floor that would do so in his individual capacity. Nor
did he believe they needed to be operated on by the fear of a number of
these claims being brought: he believed their number was small. But,
said he, shall we fear that we shall be called upon to pay a few more
just debts? He trusted so unworthy an apprehension would not prevent
them from doing what was right. The act of limitation was produced, he
said, by an incapacity to pay the claims which were made upon
Government, and now they took advantage of that capacity, by refusing to
pay the just demands which were made upon them. The certificates which
had been given, not worth more than one-eighth of their nominal value,
had been scattered all over the United States, and the distance from the
seat of Government had been the reason application had not been made for
payment. He spoke from his own knowledge. He had some of them put into
his hands. Some of them he was fortunate enough to get paid before the
act of limitation passed; others were yet unsettled. It was only since
the erection of this Government, which had given them the ability to
pay, that these claims were brought forward; for six or seven years
every kind of claim was mustered, and the public debt was considerably
swelled by them, but now a contrary extreme was observed, and no claim,
however just, had a chance of being satisfied. He had never troubled the
House on a subject of this kind before, but he had taken advantage of
the fortunate decision of this morning to say a few words on the
subject.

Messrs. HEATH, MACON, WILLIAMS, and D. FOSTER, were against a committee
being appointed to bring in a bill; they hoped no partial regulation
would take place, but that if any exception was made, from the operation
of the act of limitation, it would be done in a general way, as there
was a great number of claims equally well entitled, with Mrs. Dardin's,
to payment. Indeed, Mr. D. FOSTER, Chairman of the Committee of Claims,
(who was not present when the question was taken upon the report,) said,
if this claim was granted, it would bring forward a thousand others.

The report, petition, and papers, were committed to the whole House on
Monday.


SATURDAY, February 25.

_Suability of States._

On motion of Mr. HARPER, the House then resolved itself into a Committee
of the Whole, on the report of the select committee on the resolution
sent from the Senate, authorizing the PRESIDENT to make inquiry of
certain States whether they had adopted the proposed amendment to the
constitution with respect to the suability of States.

The select committee did not confine themselves to this single
amendment, as reported from the Senate, but went back to the year 1789,
when twelve amendments were proposed by Congress; for though they state
eleven States out of fourteen had ratified ten of these amendments in
the year 1791, yet they were of opinion that a doubt might arise whether
eleven States ought to be considered as the three-fourths of fourteen;
they therefore wished the PRESIDENT to be requested to make inquiry also
from the non-ratifying States on the subject of these ten amendments.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, the resolution of itself was only exceptionable as it
had connection with the statement which went before it, in which it was
made a question whether the ten last amendments of the twelve proposed
by Congress to the States in March, 1789, were ever made part of the
constitution. He did not wish a doubt to be expressed on this subject.
This doubt, in the opinion of the committee, it seemed, rested on a
supposition that eleven were not three-fourths of fourteen. He could not
conceive how any doubt could arise on this subject, since it must be
acknowledged by every one that eleven was more than three-fourths of
fourteen. If the objection arose from fourteen not being divisible in
equal fourth parts, it was an objection to the constitution as
originally made. It was formed by thirteen States, which was no more
divisible into fourths than fourteen. On this ground, an amendment could
never have been made to the constitution. He hoped the Chairman of the
committee would give them some information on the subject.

Mr. HARPER said, it was not of much importance whether the committee had
doubts, or whether those doubts were well founded. The committee stated
they had these doubts. He had them; not whether eleven was three-fourths
of fourteen, according to arithmetical calculation--every school boy
knew, that, in that view, eleven was more than three-fourths of
fourteen; but it was, whether you could make a division of States. He
believed it could not be done; he believed there must be twelve
ratifying States to be three-fourths, as intended by the constitution,
because that number would be three-fourths of sixteen, which was the
nearest number to fourteen capable of four equal divisions. Whether this
doubt was well founded or not, there could be no harm in directing the
inquiry to be made; it would be made as soon for thirteen amendments as
for one, and if any other State should have ratified the ten amendments
in question, all doubt would be removed. Mr. H. noticed an error or two
which had escaped the committee in their report.

Mr. GALLATIN said, the resolution under consideration went to direct the
PRESIDENT to apply to all those States, by whom, as far as can be known
from the official documents heretofore transmitted, all or any of the
amendments at any time proposed by Congress still remained to be
ratified. There could be no occasion to make the inquiry with respect to
all these amendments, unless it were taken for granted that none of them
had yet been ratified. He was, therefore, of opinion, with the gentleman
from Virginia, that such an application would be very improper, as
bringing the ten last amendments into doubt, which he believed to be as
much a part of the constitution as any other article in it; he also
thought them a very valuable part, and not to be trifled with.

But, upon what ground, said Mr. G., do the advocates of this report
prove that 11 is not three-fourths of 14? The idea was so novel that he
could scarcely understand what principle they adopted in order to create
a doubt on their minds on this subject. To him the position that 11 was
more than three-fourths of fourteen appeared to be one of those
self-evident axioms which hardly admit of a proof. The principle on
which the doubt arose must be so very nice, so abstract, that he did not
know whether he was capable of comprehending it. Anxious as he was to
avoid saying any thing which might be construed as misstatement, he
would, however, attempt to analyze what he conceived to be the ground of
the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. HARPER.)

It appeared to him that that gentleman thought three-fourths in itself
was not a fraction of the unit, was not a number conveying to the mind
the simple idea of a fraction; but that it was a compound of fractions,
and that the only way by which the idea of three-fourths could be
conceived was by a decomposition. Because the idea of three-fourths was
by our numerical arithmetic expressed by the two figures 3/4, that
gentleman was unable to conceive what it meant except by decomposition,
by dividing the unit into four equal parts and multiplying the result by
3. And if that idea of three-fourths had happened to be expressed by the
fraction nine-twelfths, (which was the same thing as three-fourths,)
that gentleman could not have conceived it except by dividing in the
first place the unit into twelve parts and then multiplying the result
by nine. In fact he denied the existence of any number, part of a unit,
except as it consisted of an aggregate of such parts as the unit could
exactly be divided into.

Thus, when speaking of fourteen States, although he (Mr. GALLATIN) could
at once understand that three-fourths of fourteen was ten-and-a-half,
and, therefore, (admitting, as he did together with that gentleman, that
the vote of a State was indivisible) that eleven States were more than
three-fourths of fourteen, the gentleman from South Carolina proceeded
in a different way. The fourth part of fourteen being three-and-a-half,
he says that, as a State cannot be divided, you must take four States
instead of three-and-a-half for the fourth part of fourteen, and then
multiplying these four States by three, in order to get the
three-fourths, he concludes that twelve States are three-quarters of
fourteen--that the twelve States out of fourteen are necessary to ratify
the amendments. He believed the gentleman would allow that he had not
misstated his opinion.

Let us now see, said Mr. G., how this doctrine will operate. It would go
to prove, in some instances, that three-fourths of a number is greater
than the whole. Suppose, for instance, the case of five States.
One-fourth of five is 1-1/4; but as the vote of a State cannot be
divided, you must call it two; or, as the gentleman expressed it, five
not being divisible into four equal parts, you must take the nearest
number to five capable of such division, that is to say 8, the fourth
part of which is two; two, therefore, must be considered as the fourth
part of five States, and as three multiplied by two is six, it follows,
according to that gentleman's doctrine, that the three-fourths of five
is six! Suppose that, in the constitution, instead of the expression
three-fourths, it had been said that nine-twelfths were necessary. The
number of States when the constitution was framed was thirteen. In that
case one-twelfth of thirteen being one and one-twelfth, you must, the
vote of a State being indivisible, call it two; so that in that way of
reckoning, nine-twelfths (which is the same thing as three-fourths) of
13 is 18! Consequently, the consent of eighteen States would have been
necessary in order to ratify any amendment to the constitution of a
nation consisting only of 13 States.

Let us, said he, examine a little farther. The same part of the
constitution which provides for amendments of the constitution, says,
that an amendment shall be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of
Congress; but he supposed the vote of a man was no more divisible than
that of a State. He wished to know, therefore, how the gentleman would,
on his principle, calculate what were two-thirds of the members present
when their whole number was not divisible by three?

In making treaties he wished to know what was meant by two-thirds of the
members of the Senate present? If the number present happened not to be
divisible by three, would that gentleman say, that, in that case, the
next number above the number present must be taken, which would be
divisible by three, and that if two-thirds of that number did not concur
in the vote for the treaty, no treaty should be ratified? On that
principle, in some instances, a greater proportion of the Senate would
be necessary to ratify a treaty than had been usually understood,
according to the generally received opinion of the sense of the
constitution in this respect.

Upon the whole, he believed it would be best to reject the report, as,
besides the objections alluded to, it was confessedly inaccurate in some
of its parts, and adopt the resolution sent from the Senate, which
applied only to the amendment respecting the suability of States. If the
House meant to go any further, they might introduce the first and second
amendments proposed at the same time with the other ten, but which had
not yet been ratified.

Mr. HARPER said, he would add a word or two to what he had already
offered on this subject. He did not know whether the House thought with
him on this subject, that it was a doubtful point whether the ten
amendments in question had been ratified according to the sense of the
constitution. If they did, they would of course, vote for the report.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, he acknowledged, had not only shown his
knowledge in arithmetic, but also his wit, which had not until now been
brought before them. In the enjoyment of the last he had participated in
common with the House.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) was in favor of rejecting the resolution
reported by the select committee, as it embraced too many objects, and
held out a kind of invitation for States to come forward and propose
amendments to the constitution. He trusted the first of the amendments,
proposed in 1789, relative to the proportion of representation, never
would be agreed to, as it would have extremely mischievous effects.
Indeed, if any thing were done with respect to that amendment, he should
think it ought to be to request those States which have not adopted it,
not to do it, and those who have agreed to it, to revoke their vote in
favor of it.

The question was then taken on the resolution reported, and negatived,
without division.

The resolution was as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to apply, as speedily as may be, to all those
      States, by which, as far as can be known from the official
      documents heretofore transmitted, all or any of the
      amendments, at any time proposed by Congress, still remains
      to be ratified; and to obtain from them authentic
      information of the proceedings had by them, respectively,
      on the subject of those amendments, or any of them."

The question was then taken on the resolution of the Senate, and agreed
to. It was as follows:

      "_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
      the President be requested to adopt some speedy and
      effectual means of obtaining information from the States of
      Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
      Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina, whether they have
      ratified the amendment proposed by Congress to the
      constitution, concerning the suability of States: If they
      have, to obtain the proper evidences thereof."


_Accommodation of the President._

On motion of Mr. GALLATIN, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole on the bill to accommodate the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
when

Mr. HENDERSON said, he wished for information on this subject, as he had
not sufficient to convince him of the propriety of granting 14,000
dollars, in addition to the furniture now in possession of the
PRESIDENT; he therefore moved to strike out the 14,000, for the purpose
of inserting 5,000. The bill informed them that this sum, in addition to
what might arise from the sale of such of the present furniture as may
be decayed, out of repair, or unfit for use, was to be laid out in
furnishing the household for the PRESIDENT. It was very lately that they
had received a proposition from the Senate to advance the salary of the
PRESIDENT 5,000 dollars; the bill was rejected by that House. It
appeared to him that this bill went to effect the same thing in a
different way. If the object was merely to furnish the household of the
PRESIDENT, he thought a much less sum would be adequate to that purpose.
He thought 5,000, with the proceeds of the sale of such of the present
furniture as was unfit for service, might be sufficient. He had no doubt
that the sum would make the furniture of the PRESIDENT for four years to
come equal to what it had been for four years past.

Mr. NICHOLAS wished the gentleman would leave the sum blank, instead of
inserting 5,000.

Mr. HENDERSON consented.

The question was taken, and negatived--42 to 39.

The committee then rose, and the House having taken up the subject--

Mr. NICHOLAS said, as a majority of the House was against striking out
this sum, he wished to have some information why this sum was fixed
upon, and for what purpose it was to be applied. No one wished more than
he did to place the PRESIDENT in a situation conformable to his station;
but according to his information, this sum was more than was given to
the present PRESIDENT on his entering upon the office, though there
remained the whole of the furniture, most of which was worth as much at
this time as it was when first purchased.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he would give to the gentleman all the information
which he had on the subject. In the year 1778 or 1779, by a resolution,
of the old Congress, an household was established for the PRESIDENT of
Congress. This remained until the present Government went into operation
in the year 1789. It was then resolved, that Mr. OSGOOD should be
requested to fit up the House in a proper manner for the reception of
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. In that year the law passed for
compensating the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, which enacted that a
salary of 25,000 dollars should be allowed him, together with the use of
the furniture then in his possession belonging to the United States.
This furniture cost the United States 13,657 dollars, 83 cents. During
the period from 1779, when the household was first established until
1789, when the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES entered upon his office,
the furniture which had been purchased for the PRESIDENT by Congress,
was so much decayed, that it required nearly 14,000 dollars to replenish
it. It was the opinion of the joint committee, therefore, that in a
lapse of eight years, viz: from 1789 to the present time, the furniture
then purchased must have experienced equal dilapidation and decay, and
that a sum at least as large as was then allowed (particularly when it
was considered that the price of goods was very much advanced since that
time) should now be allowed for putting the present household upon the
same footing of respectability and convenience with that at New York in
1789. Mr. S. did not know that he could give any further information on
the subject. It was a matter of notoriety that a great part of the goods
then purchased were worn out and destroyed; such as the household linen,
crockery ware, &c., and that the PRESIDENT had renewed them at his own
expense; insomuch that if he were to take out of the House the furniture
which he had supplied, there would little remain in it besides tables,
chairs, bedsteads, and a few such articles; since all the carpets and
ornamental furniture of the House had been purchased by himself.

Whilst he was up, he would wish to obviate the only objection which had
been adduced to this bill. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HENDERSON)
had supposed that this allowance was meant to carry into effect what had
been rejected in another way, alluding to the proposed advance of
salary. That gentleman might see a very obvious distinction between the
two things. If $5,000 had been added to the salary of the PRESIDENT, he
could have disposed of it as he pleased; but the money now proposed to
be granted, was to be employed in the purchase of furniture, &c., which
would remain the property of the United States, and would devolve upon
the next PRESIDENT. Mr. S. said, he would add, that in the joint
committee there was not a dissenting voice to the proposition, and he
hoped there would not be one in the House.

The question was put for engrossing the bill for a third reading, and
carried, there being fifty votes in favor of it. This day and Monday
were mentioned for the third reading; the question was carried for the
most distant day, 40 to 35.


MONDAY, February 27.

_Accommodation of the President._

The bill to accommodate the PRESIDENT was read the third time; when Mr.
HEATH moved to have the bill recommitted, for the purpose of striking
out $14,000 to insert $8,000. He thought $14,000 too large a sum to be
given to purchase new furniture; $8,000 he thought would be a
sufficiently handsome sum for the purpose. They were apt to be too
lavish with the public money on some occasions, and too sparing on
others. He had not been satisfied with the reasons which had been given
by the Chairman of the committee for giving the sum now in the bill. At
a time when our Treasury was so much in want of money, he did not wish
so large a sum to be given for this purpose; nor did he think it
necessary, except it were to put our PRESIDENT in the style of a
potentate or prince. And this he was sure the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES would not wish, as he believed he was a gentleman of great
economy, and would spurn at any thing like tinsel or expense. Five
thousand dollars had been thought a sufficient sum for this purpose, but
he was willing to give $8,000. He hoped the bill would therefore be
recommitted, and this sum be inserted.

Mr. MACON seconded the motion for recommitting the bill. He was against
it altogether. He did not see why they should furnish the house of the
PRESIDENT any more than that of any other of their officers. He thought
the thing improper at first, and that it was wrong to continue the
practice. If the salary was not large enough, it should be made larger,
though he thought it sufficiently large.

Mr. RUTHERFORD concurred with his colleague, Mr. HEATH. It was
necessary, he said, that Republicans should be consistent. If we thus
give away the people's money, said he, shall we not be charged with
rapaciously putting our hands into their pockets? Have we not, he added,
refused to redress grievances and injuries, and to do justice to many
deserving and distressed citizens, because our Treasury is low? And
shall we now, when there is no right reason for it, lay hold of the
public Treasury, and lavish away $14,000? For what? For adding new
furniture to the house of the PRESIDENT. No; he was willing to render
him all possible respect; he remembered well his letter to our sister
Republic of Holland. He had a pretty good memory. He remembered well his
patriotism; but he saw no reason to give him $14,000. He would give him
$8,000, which he thought would be a very pretty compliment; but to give
$14,000 would outrage every idea of that economy and Republican
simplicity which ought to characterize the American nation. Why, said
he, shall we, who are a Confederacy of the Democratic Republicans,
everlastingly keep our eyes upon the pageantry of Eastern Courts? Let us
rather attend to our own character than that of any despotic nation upon
earth. He hoped the bill would be recommitted.

The question for recommitting was carried--45 to 40.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill, when--

Mr. HEATH moved to strike out $14,000 and insert $8,000.

Mr. GILLESPIE called for the estimate, which he understood was in
possession of the committee.

Mr. SITGREAVES said there was no estimate before the House or committee.
All that he had seen was a list of the furniture which had been
purchased for the PRESIDENT in 1789. He himself had not had patience to
go through it; but if the gentleman wished it, it might be read to the
House.

Mr. HARTLEY hoped there would have been no objection to this
appropriation. He thought the Chairman of the committee had fully shown
the propriety of granting the $14,000 to the PRESIDENT, who was not
merely an officer of the Government, but a branch of it. It was not
giving the money away, but merely advancing it on account of the United
States. He was not in favor of high salaries, but he wished the
situation of the PRESIDENT to be made comfortable and respectable.

Mr. HEATH said, he believed a great part of the furniture which was
purchased in 1789, was at present as good as when laid in; this was
particularly the case with respect to the mahogany furniture; and he
thought the $8,000 would be a sufficient sum to replace all articles of
a perishable nature, such as carpets, linens, &c.

Mr. HOLLAND was in favor of striking out, because it was only necessary
to appropriate as much as might be necessary whilst Government remained
here, as, when it should be removed, the furniture now used might not be
suitable for the house at Washington. At that time, he supposed a
further sum would be called for, and therefore he thought a less sum
than $14,000 would be sufficient for the present purpose.

Mr. WILLIAMS was in favor of the bill as it stood. He had been told that
it was the intention of the State of Pennsylvania to make an offer to
the PRESIDENT of the house which had lately been erected in this city;
if so, perhaps the furniture which might be purchased for it would be
suitable for the house in the Federal City. He had before said that he
thought it would have been better to have augmented the salary of the
PRESIDENT, and let him purchase his own furniture. But as that had not
been agreed to, he wished the committee now to rise and report progress,
that information might be gained on the subject; because he thought if
he was to have that house, that sum would not be too large.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he did not know whether the Legislature of this
State would conclude to make the PRESIDENT the offer which the gentleman
last up had mentioned; but of this he was sure, that if they did, he
could not afford to accept of it. For, if this bill passed, he was
certain that, under such circumstances, he could not remove into that
house, because he would not be able to furnish it.

Mr. S. said, he was surprised the House should so suddenly change their
opinion. He thought he had given sufficient information on the subject
to have shown the necessity of the grant. [Mr. S. here repeated what he
had before noticed respecting what had been allowed on a former
occasion.] When gentlemen entered minutely into the subject, they seemed
to have information which was not very correct. He believed the sum
mentioned in the bill not more than sufficient. The decay which had
taken place in the PRESIDENT's household would require that sum to make
it good. The gentleman from Virginia supposed there were many articles,
not perishable in their nature, which could not have been injured by
their use. He was mistaken. There was nothing but about $800 worth of
plated ware and the mahogany furniture which could at all come under
this description. Indeed, any gentleman who was in the habit of paying
his respects to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES must have seen with
regret that the appearance of his furniture was so far inferior to that
which was to be found in the houses of any of our wealthy citizens, or
even of those in moderate circumstances. When this was a notorious fact,
what ground, he asked, could gentlemen have for comparing the household
of the PRESIDENT to the pomp and splendor of Eastern Courts? On the
contrary, he thought there was a humility of appearance in the house of
the PRESIDENT, which he would not say was a disgrace to the country, but
which at least proved its rigid economy.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he voted for going into Committee of the Whole on this
subject from an idea that the sum proposed to be given to the PRESIDENT
was larger than was necessary, though he confessed he could not say what
that sum ought exactly to be; he was for giving enough and rather too
much than too little. Indeed, when he considered that the whole sum was
not to be expended, except it should be found necessary, and that a
certain style was expected to be observed in this station, he was not
for stinting the sum to what he thought just enough for purchasing
furniture. If the whole of the money granted must of necessity be
expended in furniture, he should have had more hesitation on the
subject; but as the expenditure would be left to the discretion of the
PRESIDENT, he could not suppose, from the well-known habits of economy
of that gentleman, it would be improperly disposed of. He therefore felt
no difficulty in agreeing to the sum in the bill; for though he thought
the sum too large, yet he would not so confine the appropriation as to
oblige their officer to go about the streets to look out for cheap
purchases of furniture.

Mr. BUCK said, previous to these measures being brought forward, they
had decided against any advance to the salary of the PRESIDENT. All that
time a committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the
PRESIDENT's household, and to report whether any, and what, further
accommodation was necessary to be afforded. He conceived that it was the
wish of that House that the gentleman who was coming into office should
have accommodations equal to those which had been given to the gentleman
who was leaving it. The committee had examined into facts, made a
report, and a bill had been brought in accordingly. The committee had
informed them upon what principles they had acted; and it did not appear
that they either intended to increase the splendor of the household of
the PRESIDENT, nor to add to his salary. If any member could come
forward and show that the report of the committee was erroneous, they
should have some ground upon which to reject it. He had heard no man say
this, and therefore all that had been offered on the subject ought not
to weigh against that report. When the bill was before them on Saturday,
there was a considerable majority in favor of it, and as they had no new
information on the matter, he saw no reason for a change of opinion.

Some members, Mr. B. said, had held out an idea that they were about to
give this money away, to enable the new PRESIDENT to live in the style
of foreign Courts. If the inhabitants of this city had adopted this
style, then it would be chargeable against the PRESIDENT, but not
otherwise, since it was acknowledged he had not kept pace with them in
this respect. The appropriating this money would only be converting it
into so much public property; for, when his term of office should
expire, he could not carry away a single article. It was not, therefore,
giving away a farthing, but merely providing for our own convenience to
enable the PRESIDENT to fill the office with comfort and reputation; and
as they had nothing before them to show the sum too large, he saw no
propriety in rejecting it, for the purpose of inserting any other.

Mr. RUTHERFORD said, if the House had committed an error one day, it
would be well for them to correct it another. If they were to give
$14,000 away on the present occasion, he thought they would commit a
very serious error. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SITGREAVES) had
said many of the citizens of Philadelphia lived in a superior style to
the PRESIDENT. If so, he would say they were very bad citizens, since it
was proper that the citizens of this rising Republic should cultivate a
simplicity of living and of manners.

Mr. MACON thought some of the arguments introduced on this occasion were
very improper; such as the habits of economy or private fortune of the
gentleman who was to succeed to the Presidential chair. They were about
to settle a permanent principle, which it was proper to do at this time,
before a new Presidency commenced. He knew nothing of the private
property of the person who was to fill the office, nor had it any thing
to do with the matter. The question was, whether they were to go over
the same ground every four or eight years of furnishing the house of a
new PRESIDENT? He did not wish that it should be so; he wished the
salary to be the only consideration which the PRESIDENT should receive
for his services. If it had not been settling a permanent principle, he
should not perhaps have opposed it.

It had been said that the old PRESIDENT of Congress had a household
furnished him, but he received no salary from the United States except
his household. He considered this sum as an advance upon the salary paid
to the PRESIDENT by the different States, and before any salary was
fixed by the United States; but now, as an ample salary was paid to the
PRESIDENT, he did not think such a provision should be continued. It was
sometimes said that it was no matter what sum was appropriated, as, if
it was not wanted, it would not be expended; but, he believed, whatever
sum was appropriated would be expended; for he was not one of those who
thought that revenue could not be found. He believed if the money was
granted, it would be both found and spent.

Mr. SITGREAVES wished to correct the gentleman last up with respect to
one fact. He had said the PRESIDENT of the old Congress had no salary.
It was true that he did not receive any thing under that name, but there
was a provision, not merely for the furniture of his house, but for the
constant provision of it; and this was so considerable that from 1778 to
1779, in one year, eighty-three thousand dollars were paid for that
purpose.

Mr. MACON wished to know what sort of money this was; he supposed it was
in depreciated paper.

Mr. SITGREAVES was not certain what kind of money was meant.

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH said, in settling an affair of this kind, it was
proper to have respect to the office, and not to the man who was to fill
it. He could himself consider the establishment of the PRESIDENT's
household in no other light than in the nature of a compensation for his
services, in the same way that he considered the privilege of franking,
stationery, and newspapers, allowed the members of both Houses, to be
such; because, if they were not allowed to them, they would have to
purchase those articles themselves; and if furniture was not provided by
Government for the house of the PRESIDENT, he must himself furnish it
out of his salary, or from his private purse. To refuse to provide the
necessary furniture would therefore be to reduce his salary; for it was
true that this plan of presenting furniture to the PRESIDENT was adopted
before the salary was fixed, so that it must have been considered as
being additional to the salary. And was that salary, he asked, near so
valuable now as it was when fixed? Certainly not. He trusted, therefore,
they should not reduce it.

This sum, Mr. S. said, was mentioned, from a consideration that four
years hence the seat of Government would be removed, and that then the
furniture would be in a great degree useless. They, therefore, only
recommended such a sum as they thought would be sufficient to put the
furniture in a proper state for that term. He believed that fourteen
thousand dollars would not do more than that.

Mr. MACON said he was always opposed to the privileges allowed to
members of franking, &c. Gentlemen talked about a statement; he did not
know what that might contain, he had not seen it; but he did not know
how it could require fourteen thousand dollars to repair furniture which
at first cost only thirteen thousand.

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH said, the gentleman last up was inaccurate in his
statement. The thirteen thousand dollars which were allowed for
furniture for the late PRESIDENT, was in addition to the furniture
which had already been in possession of the PRESIDENT of Congress.

Mr. SHERBURNE said, the question was with respect to the quantum of
money to be granted, as every one seemed to allow that a certain sum was
necessary. By having recourse to what was done for other officers of the
Government, they might, perhaps, form an estimate of what would be
reasonable on the present occasion. A practice had been established of
allowing our Ministers to foreign countries a sum as an outfit equal to
one year's salary; so that nine thousand dollars were allowed a Minister
for this purpose, though it might happen that he would not be employed
more than a few months in the service. He thought, therefore, that
fourteen thousand dollars could not be thought too large a sum for the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, whose term of service was for four
years, and which would go to his successor in office; whereas, the nine
thousand dollars allowed to a foreign Minister were entirely at his
disposal, though he might not be in the service more than a month.

Mr. AMES said, it appeared to him that it would be desirable to proceed
according to precedent, as nearly as they could. It was not desirable to
innovate or change the established order of things, except strong
reasons existed for the change. On inquiring what had been the practice
heretofore, they found the PRESIDENT of the old Congress, as well as the
PRESIDENT now going out of office, had establishments made for their
household similar to that now proposed. If they looked forward to that
period when the seat of Government was to be removed, and considered the
furniture which would be necessary for the house in the Federal city, it
would be seen that there would be a necessity for a new establishment at
that time, as it was evident that the present furniture or what might be
purchased with the sum now contemplated, would be wholly inadequate to
the furnishing of that house. He supposed an additional grant of twelve
or fifteen thousand pounds would be necessary for that purpose.

We have chosen an elective Government, said Mr. A., and if it were meant
to be kept pure, they must encourage the people to make choice of such
men, without respect to fortune, as they think will serve them best, but
if instead of providing a suitable household for the PRESIDENT, they
left him to provide for himself in this respect, men of large fortune
only could engage in this part of the public service. And would this, he
asked, be doing honor to the Republican Government? He thought not.

The question for striking out was put and negatived--55 to 36. The
committee then rose, and when the question was about to be put in the
House--

Mr. GALLATIN said, the provision of the bill left it to the discretion
of the PRESIDENT whether he would expend the whole of the money, or not.
His opinion was, that the sum was too large; but the question for
striking it out having been negatived, the expenditure must be left to
the discretion of the PRESIDENT. He did not mean to go into any detail.
He did not wish to place the gentleman coming into office in a worse
situation than that of him who was going out; and as he felt no
objection to leave it to the PRESIDENT to make use of the whole or a
part of this money, as his discretion should direct, he should vote for
the bill.

Mr. CLAIBORNE said, as provision had been made for furniture for the
gentleman now in office, he was inclined to vote for the fourteen
thousand dollars proposed now to be granted for the same purpose to the
gentleman who was to succeed him.

Mr. HENDERSON wished to give his reasons for voting against this bill.
He wished to place the PRESIDENT coming into office in as comfortable
circumstances as he who was going out; but it appeared to him that the
sum proposed was larger than necessary for this purpose. Indeed, said
Mr. H., when he read an article of the constitution touching this
subject, he had his doubts with respect to the constitutionality of the
proceeding. That article said, "that the PRESIDENT should receive a
compensation which should neither be increased nor diminished during the
period for which he should have been elected; and that he should not
receive within that period any other emoluments from the United States,
or any of them."

Mr. SITGREAVES believed there could be no doubt as to the
constitutionality of the proposed grant of money, as the clause ran,
"during the period for which he should have been elected," which would
not prevent them from passing any number of acts before he went into
office.

The question on the passing of the bill was then taken by yeas and nays,
and stood 63 to 27, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,
      Theophilus Bradbury, Daniel Buck, Dempsey Burges, Thomas
      Claiborne, Joshua Coit, William Cooper, William Craik,
      Samuel W. Dana, James Davenport, George Dent, George Ege,
      Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Nathaniel Freeman, junior,
      Albert Gallatin, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry
      Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove,
      Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley,
      William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, George Leonard,
      Edward Livingston, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman, James
      Madison, Francis Malbone, Andrew Moore, Frederick A.
      Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John Nicholas, John Page,
      Josiah Parker, John Patton, Elisha R. Potter, John Read,
      John Richards, Samuel Sewall, John S. Sherburne, Samuel
      Sitgreaves, Thompson J. Skinner, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel
      Smith, Isaac Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, Richard
      Sprigg, junior, Thomas Sprigg, John Swanwick, Zephaniah
      Swift, George Thatcher, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van
      Cortlandt, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams,

      NAYS.--Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell,
      Gabriel Christie, John Clopton, Isaac Coles, Jesse
      Franklin, James Gillespie, Christopher Greenup, Andrew
      Gregg, Wade Hampton, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, John
      Heath, Thomas Henderson, James Holland, Andrew Jackson,
      George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel
      Macon, John Milledge, Anthony New, Alexander D. Orr, Robert
      Rutherford, William Stradwick, and Richard Winn.

_Military and Naval Appropriations._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on this subject, when,
after some discussion respecting the price of rations, Mr. GALLATIN
insisting upon seventeen cents being a sufficiently high calculation,
and Mr. W. SMITH abiding by the estimate of the War Department at twenty
cents; the latter was agreed upon thirty-six to thirty-four, and the pay
and subsistence of the Army was settled, but which has since undergone
an alteration, owing to the two companies of cavalry being added by a
new bill. The sum for forage and clothing was also agreed upon, but
which afterwards, of course, from the above alteration, underwent an
augmentation. The hospital department being under consideration,

Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the blank with thirty thousand dollars.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to fill it with ten thousand. He said, they had this
year had a statement of the expense of the Military Establishment, by
which they found that the hospital department had cost six thousand nine
hundred and five dollars. It had been the uniform practice of the House
to appropriate from thirty to forty thousand dollars under this head,
though the expense had never exceeded seven thousand; and to apply the
surplus to other purposes. He thought it wrong to appropriate four times
the sum necessary, and had therefore proposed to fill the blank with ten
thousand dollars, which was fifty per cent. more than had ever been
expended for the purpose.

Mr. PARKER believed than ten thousand dollars would be enough to pay for
physic for the Army. Indeed he believed it was generally expended in
wine and luxuries by the officers, and that little of it went to the use
of the subordinates.

The question for ten thousand dollars was put and carried.

The blank for the Ordnance Department was filled with forty thousand
dollars; and that for the fortifications of the ports and harbors of the
United States with twenty-four thousand dollars.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to fill the blank for the Quartermaster's Department,
the Indian Department, the defensive protection of the frontiers,
bounties, and all the contingent expenses of the War Department, with
three hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. VENABLE said, if the sum necessary for each of the above items could
be specified, he would rather have it so expressed than have the whole
in one sum.

Mr. W. SMITH said it would come to the same thing, if the several items
were voted in an aggregate sum, as they were all contingent expenses. He
should move to have the blank filled with four hundred and forty-six
thousand dollars.

Mr. GALLATIN observed there were two motions before the committee: one
to fill the blank with four hundred and forty-six thousand dollars, the
other with three hundred thousand. He would observe that one of the
items in this estimate, viz., that for the fortifications of West Point,
ought not to be included under this head; but, as to the other items, he
would mention, in answer to what had fallen from the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. VENABLE) what was the reason which had induced the
committee to put them in one sum, which was to obtain the very object he
had in view in wishing to have all the items stated separately.

It would be recollected that they had had a letter from the Secretary of
the Treasury, in which he said, "that the appropriations for the
Military and Naval Establishments were considered as general grants of
money; and, though they were to be accounted for according to law, yet
it was the practice of the officers of the Treasury not to consider each
appropriation as specific, but the whole as a general grant of money."
This practice was making the law a mere farce, since the officers of the
Treasury did not consider themselves as at all bound by the specific
sums. He therefore concluded it to be proper to pass the law in such a
manner as to confine the expense to the appropriation for the different
items. It was said to be impossible to carry the law into execution on
this principle. It was said there were a number of contingent expenses
which could not be exactly ascertained, and that therefore it was
necessary the officers of the Treasury should have a certain discretion
given them to make use of the surplus of any item for which more than
was necessary had been appropriated. He believed the uncertainty here
mentioned existed, and therefore it had been concluded to be best to put
the contingent articles together in one sum, in order to give bounds to
the discretion of the Department.

Having given the reasons which caused the bill to be brought in in this
shape, Mr. G. said he would mention the items upon which the sum he had
proposed to fill up the blank was composed. For defensive protection,
sixty thousand dollars; for the Quartermaster's Department, one hundred
and fifty thousand dollars. This latter sum has been estimated at two
hundred and fifty thousand dollars, but upon what ground he was at a
loss to know. The Army would now be fixed in garrison, and would not
have to march from post to post. None of the reasons given last year for
this expense would now apply; and he thought it unreasonable that the
same sum should be allowed for this item which was allowed at the time
when they were engaged in an Indian war.

In 1789, when we had eight hundred
  men in garrison, the expenses of this
  department was                           $11,076
In 1790, he did not recollect the number
  of troops, but not more, he believed      45,763
In 1791                                     92,223
In 1792 (in the height of the Indian war)  206,510
In 1793                                    178,602
In 1794                                    263,000
In 1795                                    317,647

What would be the expense of 1796, could not be exactly ascertained. It
appeared by the statement which they had received that upwards of two
hundred and four thousand dollars had been expended. Whether there were
any further demands unsettled, he could not tell. It appeared,
therefore, that the expense of that Department had increased from eleven
thousand to three hundred thousand dollars. This had been owing to two
causes--the increase of the Army, and by the Indian war. There had also
been a great loss of horses from having forage to fetch great distances.

Mr. DEARBORN could see no reason for making the appropriation so large
as had been proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina. It must be
recollected that the Army was in garrison, where there were
barrack-houses convenient for the officers and men, and contracts had
been entered into for delivering provisions at the different forts, and
there would therefore be a great deduction on account of the
transportation, in which seven or eight hundred horses had been used up,
and the horses on hand might also be sold. Camp equipage was a heavy
article of expense, but which would not be wanted whilst the troops were
in garrison. These two articles would of themselves make a very
considerable part of the whole item. There would also be a saving in the
purchase of horses, as the cavalry made more than half the expense. He
did not think more than one hundred thousand dollars could be wanted
under this head, except it were wanted for making new forts or
fortifications. There would now be no necessity for building officers'
houses, and huts for the soldiers for winter quarters. All these
circumstances considered, he thought the sum he had mentioned would be
sufficient.

The question for filling the blank with four hundred and forty-six
thousand was put and negatived, there being only thirteen votes in favor
of it. The sense of the committee was then taken upon three hundred
thousand, and carried--there being 51 votes in favor of it.

Mr. W. SMITH then moved to add to the bill, "For the repairs of the
fortifications of West Point, twenty thousand dollars."

Mr. COIT inquired if there was any estimate of this item.

Mr. GALLATIN said there was no estimate respecting West Point.

Mr. W. SMITH said there was an estimate for Niagara, Oswego, Detroit,
&c., which might include West Point, he proposed therefore to change the
motion, and insert "Niagara, Oswego, Detroit, &c.," which would include
West Point, if necessary.

Mr. GALLATIN wished the gentleman from South Carolina to say whether he
had any information with respect to West Point.

Mr. W. SMITH said, he had no particular information on the subject, but
as it was of importance the works there should be very complete, he
thought it prudent to grant something for that object.

Mr. GALLATIN hoped the proposition would be rejected. There was no
necessity for repairing the fortifications of the posts mentioned more
than any other of the forts upon the Lakes. They knew nothing of them,
but that they were too large for the garrisons in them; but he believed
if they once begun to appropriate money for this purpose, it would
become a yearly expense, And whilst they had been parsimonious with
respect to the ports and harbors of the United States, having only
appropriated twenty-four thousand dollars to that purpose, he could see
no reason for granting twenty thousand dollars for repairing the forts
of Niagara, Oswego, and Detroit, against a few Indians; as it was well
known that a block-house was as good a fortification against the Indians
as any other. When the regiment was raised to go and take possession of
that country, they built all their forts as they went along, without any
expense, except the price of a few tools. He hoped, therefore, they
should not by voting for this sum, introduce a new item of expense into
their annual appropriations.

Mr. W. SMITH agreed with the gentleman last up, that enough had not been
appropriated for the defence of the ports and harbors of the United
States; but if they had done wrong in one instance, it was no rule why
they should continue to do so. He thought it very important that the
forts he had mentioned should be so secured at least as that they should
not go to ruin. Under this item was included West Point, which was a
fort of great consequence; and he would rather forty thousand dollars
were appropriated than twenty thousand for this purpose.

Mr. DEARBORN said, as far as the proposition related to Niagara, Oswego,
and Detroit, he thought it improper to appropriate money for their
defence. He believed it would require a year or two to know what was
necessary to be done there. At Niagara, the works were large enough for
six or seven thousand men, and it would become a question whether they
should be reduced, or kept up as they were; at Oswego, nothing more
could be necessary than a block-house. It was true, there were
considerable works there, but until it was decided what they should do
with them, it would be improper to appropriate money for their repair.
The same thing might be said of Detroit. He had no idea that the
PRESIDENT could have information from those places of what was
necessary. Whatever temporary repair might be required there, the troops
themselves would be able to effect. As to West Point, he did not know
any thing about it, except that it was a place of consequence; he also
knew that a great deal of money had been laid out upon it. He hoped they
should get into a new system with respect to the defence of our ports
and harbors; and until that was done, he should be against granting any
considerable sum for this purpose. If gentlemen were in possession of
any information on the subject, he perhaps might be induced to vote for
a small sum: but not until he knew more of the matter.

Mr. LIVINGSTON spoke of the importance of the fort at West Point, and of
the necessity of keeping it in proper repair.

Mr. COIT said, the question seemed to have taken a new turn. He presumed
that West Point was not in the idea of the Secretary of War when he made
the estimate upon which this bill was founded. If it had been, it would
have been very improper to have begun with Oswego, and include West
Point in the _et cetera_. In June, 1796, 20,000 dollars, he said, were
appropriated for the repairs of this fort, and they had not been
informed that it had been expended.

Mr. GALLATIN said, there had been 7,000 dollars expended at West Point;
the other 13,000 dollars were not intended for that fort. The present
appropriation was doubtless intended for the forts mentioned, and those
in the same quarter. If any thing was wanted for West Point, a distinct
proposition should come before them for that purpose.

Mr. W. SMITH observed that the gentleman last up had stated that only
7,000 dollars had been expended at West Point; that was only the amount
which had been expended at the time the estimate was made; but the whole
might have been since laid out, as then only 520,000 dollars of the
appropriation of the Military Establishment had been expended.

Mr. GALLATIN said, that the total expenditure of the estimate alluded to
was 1,280,479 dollars.

The question was put and negatived, there being only 19 votes in favor
of it.

The committee then rose and had leave to sit again.


TUESDAY, February 28.

_Algerine Captives: Ransom._

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the petitions of George
Smith and John Robertson, who prayed for a repayment of the money which
they had themselves paid for their ransom from Algerine slavery,
reported that the ransom of George Smith cost $2,426, of which Colonel
Humphreys had paid $1,526, and George Smith the remainder; that by the
late return of our citizens from Algiers, the expense attending the
redemption of each man was ascertained to be $2,396, independent of the
expense of the general negotiation, and allowing for small inaccuracies
on account of some expenses which could not at present be ascertained.
He recommends, therefore, that George Smith have paid him $873, which,
with the sum paid by Colonel Humphreys, would make about $2,400. John
Robinson paid for his own ransom $1,518, the interest upon which came to
$516; the Secretary therefore recommends that $2,034 be paid to him.

On motion of Mr. SWANWICK, this report was referred to a select
committee, viz: Messrs. SWANWICK, BLOUNT, COIT, SEWALL, and PARKER.

_General Appropriation Bill._

The amendments from the Senate to the bill making appropriations for the
support of Government for the year 1797, were taken up and agreed to, as
also those to the bill laying additional duties on sundry articles of
impost. The amendments which were agreed to were to add to white cotton
goods, "velvets and velverets, whether printed, stained, colored, or
otherwise, and all muslins and muslinets, two and a half per cent." And
also a new section, enacting that an addition of 10 per cent. should be
laid upon these articles when imported in ships or vessels not of the
United States. The duties are to take place after the 31st of December
next.

_Military and Naval Appropriations._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
Military and Naval Appropriations; when, the pay and subsistence of
three captains in the Naval department being under consideration--

Mr. SWANWICK thought it would be necessary to have a laborer or two
employed to take care of the vessels and materials.

Mr. W. SMITH said, the estimate for the captains was $4,200; if the sum
was made $5,000, there would be sufficient for the payment of any
laborers which might be necessary. Agreed to.

The blank for the payment of Military Pensions was agreed to be filled
with $96,350.

And for making good the deficiencies of the Military Establishment of
1796, $76,312.

Also, for the payment of the expedition of General Sevier into the
Cherokee nation, $22,816.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.

_Executive Veto on the Army Bill._

The following Message, in writing, was received from the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, containing his objections to the bill for fixing the
Military Establishment:

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

      Having maturely considered the bill to alter and amend an
      act, entitled "An act to ascertain and fix the Military
      Establishment of the United States," which was presented to
      me on the twenty-second day of this month, I now return it
      to the House of Representatives, in which it originated,
      with my objections.

      _First._ If the bill passes into a law, the two companies
      of light dragoons will be, from that moment, _legally_ out
      of service, though they will continue afterwards _actually_
      in the service; and for their services during this
      interval, namely, from the time of _legal_ to the time of
      _actual_ discharge, it will not be lawful to pay them,
      unless some future provision be made by law. Though they
      may be discharged at the pleasure of Congress, in justice
      they ought to receive their pay, not only to the time of
      passing the law, but at least to the time of their actual
      discharge.

      _Secondly._ It will be inconvenient and injurious to the
      public to dismiss the light dragoons as soon as notice of
      the law can be conveyed to them, one of the companies
      having been lately destined to a necessary and important
      service.

      _Thirdly._ The companies of light dragoons consist of one
      hundred and twenty-six non-commissioned officers and
      privates, who are bound to serve as dismounted dragoons
      when ordered so to do. They have received, in bounties,
      about two thousand dollars; one of them is completely
      equipped, and above half of the non-commissioned officers
      and privates have yet to serve more than one-third of the
      time of their enlistment; and, besides, there will, in the
      course of the year, be a considerable deficiency in the
      complement of infantry intended to be continued. Under
      these circumstances, to discharge the dragoons does not
      seem to comport with economy.

      _Fourthly._ It is generally agreed that some cavalry,
      either militia or regular, will be necessary; and,
      according to the best information I have been able to
      obtain, it is my opinion that the latter will be less
      expensive and more useful than the former in preserving
      peace between the frontier settlers and the Indians, and,
      therefore, a part of the Military Establishment should
      consist of cavalry.

                          G. WASHINGTON.

      UNITED STATES, _February_ 28, 1797.

On motion,

      "_Resolved_, That to-morrow be assigned for the
      reconsideration of the said bill, in the mode prescribed by
      the Constitution of the United States."

The question to concur was put and carried--40 to 37.


WEDNESDAY, March 1.

_Military Establishment._

Mr. GALLATIN wished the bill for fixing the Military Establishment,
which had been returned by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, with his
objections, to be taken up.

Mr. W. SMITH hoped this subject would be taken up, but before it was
entered upon, he wished the Committee of the Whole to be discharged from
the consideration of it, as he found, in a former instance of a similar
kind, the business had been settled in the House. The committee was
accordingly discharged. The House then proceeded to reconsider the bill,
agreeably to the direction of the constitution. The bill was first read,
and then the objections of the PRESIDENT.

The SPEAKER then read the clause in the constitution which directs the
proceedings on such an occasion, and which says, that in case two-thirds
of the House wherein it originated shall be in favor of passing the
bill, it shall be sent to the other, and if two-thirds of that House be
also in favor of it, it shall become a law. The votes of both Houses to
be determined by yeas and nays.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he meant to vote against the bill, but he did not
wish to stand charged with refusing to pay the men for the time they
were in service. He thought this bill was by no means liable to a charge
of this kind; as it could scarcely be supposed that, at the time they
were making a voluntary gift of $100 to every officer discharged, the
Legislature meant to defraud the men of their pay.

Mr. W. SMITH did not see any necessity for the observations of the
gentleman from Virginia. There was nothing in the Message of the
PRESIDENT which charged that House with an intention to defraud the men
of their pay. Whatever was the design of gentlemen, this was not the
charge. But certain it was that this would be the result of the bill,
and it would be six weeks or two months before they could be notified
that the act was passed. It was the legal opinion of the Attorney
General, therefore, that they would not be entitled to pay during that
time.

Mr. NICHOLAS was sorry that the gentleman from South Carolina and he did
not think alike on the subject; he thought the objections he had made
were necessary, and he had made them for the purpose stated. He thought
the PRESIDENT ought not to have doubted their willingness to have
allowed the pay in question. He was of opinion the House had given some
extraordinary proofs of their liberality this session; amongst other
proofs of this, they had determined to appropriate money for the
building of a thirty-six gun frigate, which he had caused to be built
without authority. But the pay of these men was so much a point of law,
that he believed the men would have been entitled to pay.

Mr. W. SMITH said, their having agreed to give each of the officers
$100, without mentioning the men, rather went against the gentleman's
conclusion; because, if any thing had been intended to have been given
to them, they would also have been mentioned.

Mr. WILLIAMS was sorry that some things had not been more attended to,
when that bill was under consideration; and, although there would be a
difficulty respecting the Brigadier General and Staff, yet he thought
the objections well founded, and would vote against the passing of the
bill, in order that a new one might be brought in to avoid the
objections, from the demands lately made for the protection of the
frontiers of Georgia and Tennessee, which amounted to upwards of
$300,000; he fully agreed with the PRESIDENT that it would be less
expense to keep up the two companies of dragoons than to employ militia
horse.

The yeas and nays were then taken, and stood 55 to 26.

The bill being accordingly lost, Mr. NICHOLAS moved that a committee be
appointed to bring in a new bill, which being agreed to, a new bill was
reported (exactly the same as the former, except an omission of the
parts objected to by the PRESIDENT.) It was ordered to be engrossed for
a third reading, and afterwards passed.

_Case of Hanging Maw._

Mr. BLOUNT called for the order of the day on the report of the
Committee of Claims on the petition of the widow of the late
Scollacuttaw, or Hanging Maw. The House accordingly went into a
committee thereon, when the report was read, as follows:

      "That the complaints against the conduct of one John Beard,
      and a number of armed men, who, she states, in the year one
      thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, contrary to law
      and the good faith of Government, attacked the
      dwelling-house of the petitioner and husband, killed and
      wounded a number of well-disposed Indians; burnt, and
      destroyed, and carried away their property, and wounded the
      petitioner. She now prays that some provision may be made
      for her.

      "After examining the statement made by the petitioner, and
      the facts upon which she rests her present application, the
      committee have found some difficulty in deciding what
      measures would be most advisable for the House to adopt.

      "Previous to the attack on the Hanging Maw, the frontier
      settlers of Tennessee and the Indians in that quarter had
      been guilty of mutual acts of aggression and hostility. A
      party of the Indians had killed some settlers; their trail
      was discovered, conducting across the Tennessee--this
      circumstance induced a belief in their pursuers that the
      Hanging Maw had been concerned in that business, and
      occasioned his being wounded, and the misfortunes
      complained of by his widow. The general opinion, however,
      represents the Hanging Maw as having been uniformly
      friendly to the settlers; as vigilant to apprise them of
      the approach of banditti; and constant in his exertions, on
      all occasions, to compose difficulties between them and his
      nation; and, withal, as possessing considerable influence
      over the Indians. The same disposition is also attributed
      to his widow, the present petitioner; who, instead of
      exciting her people to acts of retaliation, has abated
      nothing in her friendship to the white people.

      "All these circumstances seem to countenance, if not to
      require for her a pension from the Government, or some
      other relief from the Legislature. Such a provision might
      also be considered as extending its influence beyond the
      particular object; or, as an inciting cause to other
      Indians to pursue a similar line of conduct, under
      circumstances alike cruel and distressing, should they
      happen.

      "But, on the other hand, it is to be considered that there
      are citizens on the frontiers who have suffered injuries as
      cruel, and deprivations as severe by the Indians; and who
      have been thereby left in situations of distress that would
      equally call for assistance from the Legislature. Questions
      arise whether both descriptions of sufferers ought not to
      be provided for? Whether the abilities of Government would
      be competent to meet all possible claims of this nature?
      And whether help can be extended by law to the one, and
      consistently refused to the other?

      "It may be said that those who settle on the frontiers
      voluntarily assume all the risks and dangers attached to
      that position; and, therefore can have no just claim upon
      the Government for consequences resulting from their
      choice; whilst, on the contrary, policy requires that the
      minds of the Indians, who may be roused to hostility by
      acts of the settlers, should be quieted by small pecuniary
      interpositions.

      "Under these views of the subject, the committee have
      hesitated what report to make; but, upon the whole, as the
      authority vested in the Executive Department is competent
      to meet this claim; and should the petitioner, from her
      sufferings and her attachment to the United States, appear
      to the Executive to be entitled to any annual relief, as it
      may be afforded out of the appropriations for contingent
      expenses in the Indian Department, without any interference
      of the Legislature, and as this mode will probably involve
      the fewest difficulties, the committee think she should
      apply to that department; and that the prayer of her
      petition ought not to be granted."[12]

The committee reported their agreement with the resolution reported from
the Committee of Claims.

The question was taken, that the House do agree with the Committee of
the whole House in their agreement to the said report, and resolved in
the affirmative.


THURSDAY, March 2.

The bill for the relief of American seamen was read the third time and
passed.

_Military Appropriations._

On the motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the House went into a committee of the
Whole on the bill making appropriation for the Military Establishment,
when the following items were agreed to without debate:

For the payment of the army,                 $256,450
For the subsistence of the officers,           47,395
For the subsistence of the non-commissioned
  officers and privates,                      245,283
For forage,                                    14,904
For clothing,                                  83,050

Mr. W. SMITH then proposed to insert a new item, in consequence of the
bill just passed, "For the purchase of horses and the equipment of the
cavalry, $16,085."

Mr. GALLATIN said, the items which had been agreed to were upon the
ground of an increase of 126 dragoons which was not in the former bill.
The item now under consideration went to provide horses and equipments
for an additional company of cavalry. It appeared that this company was
heretofore without either, so that they must have been employed as
dismounted dragoons; and if they now appropriated the sum before them,
they would, in fact, add a company of horse to the establishment. He
believed it to be the general opinion that they had cavalry sufficient
at present; indeed, it was the opinion of a large majority of that House
that none were necessary; but if they did appropriate for any, he
thought they ought not to go beyond the present establishment.

Mr. W. SMITH said, if they refused to make the appropriation under
consideration, they declared that one of the two companies of cavalry
should act as infantry. By the bill passed yesterday, it was left
altogether to the option of the PRESIDENT to employ them either as
cavalry or infantry: but if this appropriation was withheld, he would be
under the necessity of employing them as infantry only, and this House
would now exercise a discretion which only yesterday they had vested in
the Executive.

It would be observed, that, in the message of the PRESIDENT, he had
fully stated the reasons why dragoons would be requisite. The business
upon which one of the companies was at present employed was to escort
the Commissioners employed in running the boundary lines betwixt the
territory of the United States and the Indians; the other was
indispensable for the protection of the frontiers.

What, Mr. S. asked, would be the consequence of refusing this
appropriation? One of the companies of dragoons would be obliged to act
as infantry, and Government would be compelled to employ militia-horse
at a great expense. If this was economy, he was mistaken in his ideas of
economy. The sum was conformable to the estimate which he had received
from the War Office.

Mr. HARTLEY was in favor of the appropriation, that the PRESIDENT might
be at full liberty to employ the troops on foot or on horse-back,
according as the service might require.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought, while they were making appropriations, this
subject might as well be included. If these men were to be kept, they
ought to be properly equipped. He said it was the opinion of the
PRESIDENT and the Secretary of War that cavalry was necessary, and
therefore he had concluded it would be proper, and wished them to be
kept up, so as to be called into service whenever necessary.

Mr. MILLEDGE thought there was great need of cavalry; it would be an
object of policy, as, by information he had received from the Governor
of Georgia, (which he had in his hand, and which was corroborated by a
late Governor,) horse were absolutely necessary--he thought three
companies--on the frontier. He therefore was in favor of the
appropriation.

Mr. VARNUM had no doubt but the gentleman from Georgia, and every
gentleman in the House, would be glad to have horse and infantry too
kept up in their State: every part would be glad to have the public
money expended upon it. He could not see why a body of cavalry should be
kept up in a time of peace. He thought the Legislature had as good a
right to judge as any person, notwithstanding the authorities produced
to sanction the appropriation. Mr. V. had no doubt, if this was granted,
that application would soon be made again for a similar purpose. He
hoped this appropriation would not take place; it would be a small
saving, and might as well be made, as there was so much want of it. He
could have wished the troops reduced to two regiments, which he thought
quite sufficient for a Peace Establishment. He hoped the PRESIDENT's
ideas on the subject would not obtain to govern the decisions of the
House, as we have the power, said he, to withhold appropriations; and
what gentlemen who were locally concerned should say, he could not be
guided by; as soldiers would consume their produce and spend money
amongst them, consequently they were interested.

Mr. CRAIK really lamented that the gentleman had not been in the House
yesterday, at the time the subject was more under consideration: he
might then have inveighed against the PRESIDENT. The observations might
have come with more propriety, if they had been made before the bill
passed, and when under discussion; but, after a law has passed the
proper authorities--after it has been resolved to have these troops of
horse--to say, we will not appropriate money to carry it into effect, is
strange conduct. If the determination of the gentleman was to oppose the
bill, he should have used every means to that purpose, and if not
effectual, at least to suffer others to enjoy their will--especially a
majority. For the sake of consistency, he hoped the gentleman would
withdraw his opposition, and not in this side-way try to defeat the
operation of a bill which has passed. The cavalry were voted because
they were supposed to be necessary, and now a gentleman comes forward,
endeavoring to excite the jealousy of the House on the Executive's
meddling with the Military Establishment. Mr. C. said he was pleased
that the PRESIDENT had refused it, if it was only to convince some
gentlemen that he had power to refuse that or any other bill. [Here Mr.
DENT asked the gentleman if he was in order.] Mr. CRAIK said he only
wished to prove the inconsistency of the member's conduct. He thought
the House should not betray a want of consistency. He believed, from the
statement of the member from Georgia, and the reasons of the PRESIDENT,
that horse were necessary, and he therefore should wish the
appropriation to be passed.

Mr. KITCHELL said, gentlemen seemed to be mistaken; they were
continually alluding to the law passed yesterday. There was not a word
about two troops of horse yesterday. All we then said, was, that we
would not say there should not be two troops of horse; the Message of
the PRESIDENT did not say that two troops should be mounted, nor do I
say, said Mr. K., that horse are not necessary; I think some are
necessary; but the inquiry seemed to be, now, whether the House were to
vote for more.

Mr. W. SMITH said, the gentleman's observations were very extraordinary;
he surely could not have attended to the subject, to say that the House
had not passed the law authorizing two troops of horse. We have a law in
force, said he, to ascertain and fix the Military Establishment, in
which we authorize the PRESIDENT to employ the two troops of dragoons,
to serve either on horse or foot at his discretion. The bill we sent up
yesterday does not repeal that law, and yet gentlemen would now come
forward to oppose the appropriation, and determine they shall act on
foot. He could not think with what propriety the restriction could be
made as the gentleman from Massachusetts wishes, nor could he think how
the gentleman from Jersey had attended. Should we now say they should be
at our direction, and that we would not grant money without? This would
be strange conduct--an assumption of power which he hoped the House
would never arrogate.

Mr. KITCHELL said his meaning was, that the horse were not established
yesterday, but before.

Mr. HARTLEY said it appeared, from good testimony, that the troops were
requisite to save the people on the frontiers from the depredations of
the Indians; he thought, therefore, that they having been established
before, the House were bound to make the appropriation to give effect,
or show the great inconsistency.

Mr. NICHOLAS said it was not his intention to vote for these men at all;
but if they must have them, perhaps it would be most economical to equip
them. With respect to their power of withholding the appropriation, he
had no doubt; and though they had yesterday passed a law establishing
two companies of cavalry, it was in the power of that House, of the
Senate, or of the PRESIDENT, to refuse an appropriation. This was the
sense of the constitution. When the bill came before the House, he
should give his negative to the additional horse; for, if they were
always to keep up the same number of men, whether in war or peace,
except two-thirds of both Houses were found to oppose the will of the
PRESIDENT, they might bid adieu to all restraint upon Executive power,
and count upon a military Government, if ever an Executive should be
found whose will it should be to make it so. If these were to be kept
up, he would still say the House had better go to $100,000 expense to
mount them on horse-back.

Mr. VARNUM said it was observed by gentlemen that those troops were not
mounted; if so, there must have been a very lavish waste of money.
However that might be, gentlemen who state this matter ought to state it
fairly. They ought not to say that two companies of cavalry were
yesterday voted. No, they were part of the old War Establishment. It was
true, the House had not the power to repeal the law; but one thing was
in their power, and that they ought to do, if they see this part of the
standing army necessary. The constitution returns the power to act on it
once in every two years to each branch of the Legislature. The House, he
thought, had good right to exercise their own opinion on the necessity
of mounting these men. It was not in the power of one branch to repeal
the law which keeps these men, but we ought to consider whether they are
to be put in the same situation as in time of war. Mr. V. said he
discharged his duty in voting against this appropriation. The House had
a right to judge, and it was not in the power of the PRESIDENT to act
for them.

Mr. HEATH said that the subject had been fully discussed, and therefore
he should only observe, that, from the authority which had recommended
the mounting of these cavalry, he should vote for the appropriation.

Mr. MILLEDGE repeated his arguments on the local situation of the
country, and asserted the absolute necessity of the troops.

The motion was put and carried--there being 56 in favor of it.

_Naval Appropriations._

Mr. W. SMITH then proposed to add $172,000 for finishing the frigates
United States, Constitution, and Constellation.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he should be against appropriating so large a sum for
this purpose. It was the sense of the House, on a former occasion, that
it would be proper to appropriate such a sum as should put them in such
a situation as to secure them from injury, but to stop short of making
them fit for sea, that the expense of manning them might be avoided.

Mr. SWANWICK said a new view of the subject seemed to be brought forward
at present. Before, they had determined to finish the frigates; but now,
they were not to finish them, lest they should be manned, but to finish
them in part only. A gentleman yesterday said, when speaking on the
subject of the PRESIDENT's Message, that he could not suppose they would
have refused to pay the soldiers, though there might be some deficiency
in the expression of the act; and might he not suppose, said Mr. S., if
the frigates were so nearly finished, he might go on to finish them, and
trust to the Legislature to furnish the money? These frigates, he said,
were a very extraordinary concern. It seemed as if it was only when it
was to be made a present of to Algiers, that a frigate could be
finished, and not when it was for the protection of our own commerce. He
trusted, however, that there would not be a majority found in that House
who would vote against finishing the frigates: as to manning them, that
would remain for a future consideration.

Mr. PARKER said, it would require all the money which had been named for
finishing the frigates, without rigging, though there would be a
considerable quantity of materials left on hand. There need be no
apprehension of their being manned, whilst seamen's wages remained at
the price they were, because men could not be got on the terms
stipulated in the law for this purpose. If a smaller sum than was
mentioned were to be granted, they might as well give nothing.

Mr. SITGREAVES supposed the blank was now proposed to be filled with the
same sum which had been agreed upon on a former occasion. If this were
the case, it ought to dissipate the fears of the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. NICHOLAS,) as it was well known that the sum was
predicated upon a supposition that the frigates were not to be manned.
If they were to be manned, a further appropriation would certainly be
necessary.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, it appeared to him that if all gentlemen were agreed
that this business should go no further than the building of the
frigates, they could have no hesitation to leave undone some of the
internal finishing work of the vessels; if they did not wish to put them
into such a situation as that they might force them into service upon
the spur of an alarm, they could have no objection to their being left
in such a situation as to be perfectly secure, but not finished fit for
sea.

Mr. SITGREAVES said this subject had heretofore undergone a very full
discussion. A motion was then made merely to finish the hulls, which was
negatived. It was then said that contracts were made for all the
materials, and that except the frigates were finished, the engagements
which had been entered into could not be fulfilled. But there was
another security against the danger apprehended. They had lately come to
a determination to make all appropriations specific and particular. What
was the language of the present appropriation? It was for finishing the
frigates, not for manning them. If it had been said to be for carrying
into effect the law for the Naval Establishment, there might have been
some little ground for apprehension; but, as it now stood, the Executive
could not proceed to man the vessels.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, when they voted the sum now asked for finishing the
frigates, the expenditure was accompanied by a law to repeal the manning
clause of the former act. He had made inquiries respecting contracts,
and found the money in hand was equal to the fulfilment of them; if
there had been any others, he supposed they should have heard of them.
He again said there were many ornamental parts of the vessels which
might be as well thrown upon the expense of next year as of this.

Mr. SWANWICK said, if Government could have had foresight sufficient to
have known that there would have been any objections made to the
finishing of the frigates, they would certainly not have entered into
any contracts to that extent, but they could not possibly do this. He
wished, if gentlemen were determined the frigates should not be made use
of, that they would say at once they should be sold on the stocks. With
respect to manning of them from the money proposed to be appropriated,
that was impossible, and he saw no reason for making the business
_doubly sure_ by any other precaution.

Mr. HOLLAND said it was, with great propriety, intended by many members
in the House to keep the frigates in such a state as to prevent their
being manned. If we appropriate to finish them, said he, we shall be
exposed to all the difficulties depicted by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania; for some way would be devised to procure and pay men, if
the House put it in the power of the Executive to do it: therefore he
hoped, to avoid all that trouble and expense, they would not vote to
finish them. For what purpose, said he, should they be finished, unless
it were intended to man them? To avoid every danger of that kind, he
should vote against the sum proposed.

Mr. HARTLEY said, that last year the six frigates which had been before
voted for were reduced to three, with intent to complete them. Was it
not probable then, he would ask, that the PRESIDENT would proceed to
complete those frigates, according to the power given him? Was it not to
be supposed that contracts were entered into for that purpose? No person
could suppose but contracts were made. Then certainly the House ought
not to expose the Executive to the ridiculous situation of receding from
his contracts! They would not be finished before next session, and
therefore no danger of equipping could be apprehended. It may be
necessary to use them, but at any rate it would be running no risk to
have them finished, as they could not be manned by this appropriation.

Mr. GALLATIN said, there seemed to be involved in the present
consideration the question whether or not we should have a Navy. As to
himself, he should vote against the present appropriation, because if
the frigates were completely finished, he should fear they would get to
sea. When they had on a former occasion consented to finish them, it was
under the condition of the law for manning being repealed; but they now
stood upon new ground. Mr. G. said he had been charged with
inconsistency of opinion, from having before said that he thought the
PRESIDENT would not be authorized to proceed in the manning of the
vessels under the present law, whilst he was now apprehensive that he
might do so. He wished to be on sure ground. He did not know but the
PRESIDENT might put a different construction upon the law from him.
Indeed, from the experience they had had of Presidential discretion,
they need not be surprised if the vessels were sent to sea, though no
appropriation was made for the purpose, should the PRESIDENT suppose
there was any plea for doing so. As a proof of this power having been
exercised heretofore, Mr. G. referred to the Western insurrection. In
that case, he said, no appropriation was made for the expense; but the
law authorizes the PRESIDENT to call out the militia when he shall see
occasion to do so; he called them out, and got money from the Treasury.
Indeed, the building of a frigate for Algiers, without any authority,
and the pledging of the faith of the nation to pay the expense of the
law-suits of our citizens in London, were strong proofs of what the
Executive could do.

Mr. G. said he did not mean to bring into view any arguments relative to
the propriety of establishing a Navy in this country. He should vote
against the present motion, because he did not wish to see the frigates
at sea, and because he conceived a Navy to be prejudicial to the true
interests of this country. Something had been said about contracts, but
he did not believe any existed. They had last year been told the same
thing. Any person reading the statements which had been furnished to
them, would perceive that the business was not done by any contract, but
that men were employed by Government, and regular wages paid to them.
The frigate which had been built for Algiers had been built by contract,
they had an estimate of it at so much a ton, but this was not the case
with respect to any other of the frigates.

Mr. W. SMITH did not wish to go into a long debate on the subject, when
they had so much business before them, in order to show whether it was
proper for this country to have a Navy or not; the only question now
was, whether they ought to appropriate money for finishing the three
frigates. If they did not do it, all the money which had been already
expended would probably be lost. The only objection to the doing of this
seemed to arise from a fear that the vessels would be manned, though
when this subject was before them, the other day, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) moved to postpone the bill relative to the
repealing or suspending the law for manning the vessels till next
session, from an opinion that, by the present law, the PRESIDENT was not
authorized to man them. That gentleman seemed now, however, in
contradiction to himself, to fear the PRESIDENT would put a different
construction upon the law: if he did not believe the PRESIDENT would
violate the law, he could not account for his refusing now to vote the
money which was merely necessary to finish the vessels. Mr. S. read an
extract from the report of the Secretary of War, to show the forward
state in which the vessels were, and added, that they were bound in duty
to finish them, were it only to prevent the loss of the money already
expended upon them.

Mr. DEARBORN observed, that if he was convinced, from the documents
which had been laid before them, that the sum now asked for was
necessary merely to finish the frigates, he should not hesitate to vote
for it; but it was not a little extraordinary that the gentlemen on that
committee (not even the Chairman, who seemed to have the business so
much at heart) could not say whether this sum was necessary for
finishing and rigging, or finishing without rigging, or for finishing,
rigging, and manning. The frigate building in this city, the captain had
told him, was calculated in point of size to carry 62 guns, instead of
44; which was one of the reasons they had cost so much more than they
had been estimated at. Mr. D. said, he suspected that the sum proposed
would not only be sufficient to finish the hulls, but to rig and fit the
vessels for sea, and until he had more satisfaction on the subject he
could not consent to give his vote for it.

Mr. KITTERA observed, that gentlemen first said, that under the present
law, the PRESIDENT could not proceed to man and send the vessels to sea,
but now they were apprehensive this might be done, though no
appropriation was made for the purpose. This, he thought, somewhat
inconsistent; but he believed whilst thirty dollars a month was given to
seamen by merchants, and their law only authorized eleven to be given,
there was not much to be feared on this head.

Mr. AMES said, that gentlemen opposed to the finishing of the frigates,
seemed to be also opposed to all ideas of this country ever becoming a
naval power; the necessity of this, he was persuaded, would ere long
appear. It was not to be supposed that a nation whose commerce was
greater than that of any other, except Great Britain, should go on long
without a naval protection; and he believed the more strenuous the
opposition shown against this measure, the sooner it would be
accomplished; he was not therefore displeased to see the present violent
opposition to every thing which looked towards this object.

It was not enough, Mr. A. said, for gentlemen to discourage the building
of ships, they would also discredit the administration of Government;
and nothing was more natural than that those who thought so ill of it
themselves should endeavor to spread those opinions. This was done
continually. With respect to the building of the frigates, he thought it
was a wise step; and as to the extra expense and delay which had
attended the business, he believed, gentlemen might take a share of the
blame upon themselves, on account of the versatility which had been
shown upon the occasion in this day agreeing upon one thing, and that
upon another. It was true, that another cause of extra expense was owing
to a resolution which had been taken to make the ships much larger than
was contemplated by the House; the vessel building here, he believed,
was nearly 1,600 tons. He was glad that this alteration of plan had been
adopted; not because more money would be expended on this account; not
because contrary to the direction of the Legislature, but because true
wisdom required it; they would now be an overmatch for any frigate, or
any vessel which the Algerines could send out against them. These, he
believed, were the views of the Executive in having them built of the
size they were. The number of the frigates agreed to be finished had
been reduced to three; and these they last session passed a law to
finish. But what was now to be done? It was said they should not be
finished. Who said this? Did the people? did the Government say it? No;
that House alone said it: so that that House were about to usurp the
supreme authority. We are the Government, we are the people, we are
every thing.

But, if there be a law which says that these three frigates should be
built and equipped for sea, was it not necessary, before it was
concluded that they should not be so built and equipped, that this law
should be repealed by all the branches of the Legislature? No, say
gentlemen, we can appropriate or not, according to our sovereign will
and pleasure. If they possessed the power to nullify what was enacted by
all the three branches of Government, it was greatly to be lamented. But
if they could appropriate according to their will, they were bound to
do it also according to their consciences too. It was not only a weapon,
but a shield, which it was their duty to use with great caution, and
according to law; for, if they were to use it contrarily, it would be to
make that House the supreme power, it would be to usurp the supreme
authority.

Mr. COIT believed the only real question before them was, what sum they
would appropriate for this object; he wished the mover would consent to
leave the item blank.

Mr. W. SMITH had no objection to its being left blank.

Mr. VENABLE said, if this was a mere question of expense, it was very
extraordinary that it should have called forth such a philippic from the
gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. AMES,) who had charged the House with
arrogating to itself all the powers of Government; as being omnipotent.
Upon what ground could he found such charges? If it were a question of
expense merely, there could certainly be no ground for such charges; but
if it were to be considered as a question of power, if they were to be
told they dared not to withhold the appropriation in question, here he
would intrench himself as a Representative of the people; he had a
right, as a member of that House, to vote against the expense which he
thought improper, and he would exercise that right. Every branch of
Government had the same right, and he wished them to exercise it. And he
would not be told, when he was about to exercise this right, that he was
arrogating to himself all the powers of Government. He was determined to
exercise his discretion on every question which came before him for
decision, and he would vote against this expense.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. AMES) seldom
spoke without casting some denunciation against that House. He had,
however, allowed that the PRESIDENT had done, with respect to this
fleet, all that any gentleman had charged him with doing; he had even
put the case stronger than any other person had put it; for he had said
that the Executive had determined to build the vessels of a larger size
than had been contemplated by the Legislature, in order to be an
overmatch for any other frigate. All this, said Mr. N., may be right,
and the approbation he gave this conduct, was a proof the gentleman
thought so; all he had to say was, that it was not legal; it might be
patriotic, and be done with an intention to serve the country; the
PRESIDENT might understand the interests of the country better than
they; but it was a conduct which would not meet with the same
approbation from him that it met with from the gentleman from
Massachusetts. That gentleman had also said that a law imposed a duty
upon the House to find the means for carrying it into effect. Were they
not, then, to be called upon for money to man the frigates? He asked
those gentlemen whether the PRESIDENT had not a right to man the
frigates, and if so, whether they should not be _obliged_ to find the
money?

The powers of this House to control appropriations, had, however,
already been settled. It was, indeed, an absurdity to call a body a
Legislature, and at the same time deny them a control over the public
purse; if this were not so, where would be the use of going through the
forms of that House with a money bill? The Executive might as well draw
upon the Treasury at once for whatever sums he might stand in need of. A
doctrine like this would be scouted even in despotic countries.

And what was all this power that so much alarmed the gentleman from
Massachusetts? It was merely a negative power to refuse to do what they
thought it would be mischievous to do. Mr. N. said there was a very
fashionable doctrine of throwing all power into the hands of the
Executive. If there were to be extremes, however, he believed an excess
of power would at least be as safe in their hands as in those of the
Executive; and if this were his opinion, and the ground upon which he
acted, the gentleman from Massachusetts never failed to take an opposite
direction. He never thought any Executive power too great.

Mr. PARKER remarked, that it had been said the frigates would carry 62
guns; it might have been possible to have made them so, but they were no
more than a large sized 44-gun frigate. They might be a little larger
than any other of that number of guns, but not so much. It was true they
were not at first contemplated to be so large, but strong reasons were
offered for making them of the present size; the expense was not
increased by the increase of size, in proportion to their usefulness. He
therefore himself approved of what the PRESIDENT had done; and, if he
had had the management of the business, he should have done the same. It
had been doubted whether the sum proposed to be granted would not only
finish, but equip and man the vessels. If the gentleman who had these
doubts would refer to the report which had been made on the subject, he
would find that $220,000 would be required for that purpose; the
$172,000 proposed would barely make them ready for sea in other
respects.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GALLATIN,) who was generally very
correct in his statements, had supposed that if the frigates were
finished, the PRESIDENT might go on to man them without consulting the
Legislature upon the occasion; and, to show the possibility of doing
this, he had alluded to his having built a frigate for the Algerines
without the approbation of Congress. He lamented the situation in which
we stood with that country, but he believed the building of the frigate
was necessary. The Western insurrection, and the law-suits in London had
also been named, which he should not stop to notice.

In answer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, he would say, that if the
PRESIDENT could man the vessels and send them to sea independent of
Congress, he might also finish them without their aid; but he did not
believe he would place himself in the same situation with respect to
them as if he had to do with a foreign nation. In relation to foreign
nations, he had great power; but, if he went beyond his power with
respect to internal regulations, he would be liable to impeachment, and
he would be one of the first to promote an impeachment, were such to be
his conduct.

Mr. AMES said, he understood the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS)
to say, that the conduct of the Executive was illegal; but certainly if
a frigate was estimated to cost $12,000 and it cost $15,000, the
expenditure of the additional $3,000 was not illegal.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he had made use of the gentleman's own words with
respect to the change in the plan of building the frigates, which he had
called illegal.

Mr. AMES said, as to the size of the vessels, that was Executive
business. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. VENABLE) seemed to take the
observation which he had made with a degree of sensibility perfectly
natural, because it went to touch the power which he had claimed as a
member of that House. The gentleman said, "Here I intrench myself behind
my privileges." Nothing was said about the public good; all was self.

And was it to be considered, he asked, that they enjoyed the powers
committed to them in their own right, as barons of empire, as sovereign
despots? Or was the power placed in them to be exercised like other
duties, according to justice and propriety? He believed no one would
deny that the latter was the truth.

How did the matter stand? They had attempted to repeal a law, but
another branch of the Legislature had refused to accede to the repeal;
of course it could not be effected. Were they then to act as if the law
had been repealed? Yes, say gentlemen, we will refuse to appropriate the
money since we think the thing unnecessary. He hoped, however, the day
would soon come (as melancholy would be the period until it did arrive)
when this power of refusing an appropriation to carry an existing law
into effect, should no longer be countenanced by a majority of that
House.

Mr. VENABLE was of opinion, that if the gentleman from Massachusetts had
only the public good in view, which he had spoken of, he could have had
no inducement to have gone into the arguments which he had introduced on
this occasion. He could assure that gentleman that he felt himself as
strongly bound to consider the public good in all his conduct as he
could be. He believed no instance could be named in which he had not
consulted that interest. As to what was, or was not, calculated for the
public good, he must be left at liberty to judge for himself. But the
gentleman had not put the business on this ground, but because gentlemen
differed in opinion from others, they were charged with assuming
absolute authority, with principles of despotism, overturning the
Government, &c.

Mr. V. said, it was his opinion, that in all laws which came before that
House, every member had a full right to say yea or nay, for which they
were not accountable to that gentleman, or to any other. The other
branches of Government had also the same power. Indeed, the other House
had exercised this right in negativing the repeal of the law relative to
the manning of these vessels. He trusted both Houses would always
continue to assert their right thus to use their discretion and
privilege.

Mr. AMES said, he had not charged that House with usurping power, or
breaking down the other branches of Government; nor did he say they had
not a discretion; but that their discretion ought to be regulated by
duty.

Mr. SWANWICK said, amidst all the foreign objections which had been
urged against this appropriation, he wished the act passed last session
to be referred to. [Mr. S. read an extract from it.] Here, in April
last, said he, it is provided that the frigates shall be finished, and
yet now gentlemen wished the House to come to a conclusion only to half
finish them. What, he asked, would the world think of such a versatility
of conduct?

Mr. KITCHELL thought, if they meant to get through the business which
lay before them, it was time they disposed of this question. He thought
the debate upon it had been sufficiently long.

Mr. BRENT said, when this subject first came before the committee, he
had determined to give the sum necessary to complete them; nor had he
ever wavered on the subject, until he heard the ground which had been
taken by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. AMES.) He did most
feelingly participate in the sentiments expressed by his colleague (Mr.
VENABLE) on the occasion. It was really difficult to know what was the
amount of his doctrines. In the first instance, he understood the
gentleman to rise for two purposes, viz: to justify the Executive from
certain charges which had been brought against him, and to show the
obligation which the House lay under to grant the money.

In the first place, the gentleman said the Executive had been charged
with violating the law; and, when he went into the subject, he
understood him to say, as his colleague understood him, that the
Executive had changed the plan; he understood him to say, that though
Congress had ordered 44-gun frigates, he had ordered 74's, which remark
he concluded by expressing his approbation of the PRESIDENT's conduct.
If he admitted that the Executive had violated the law, and yet
felicitated him upon having done so, he might enjoy his pleasure, he
would not participate with him.

With respect to the second part of his observations, as to the absolute
necessity under which every member lay to vote for the sum required for
finishing the frigates, because the building of them was directed by
law, this was a most important point. He thought this involved one of
the most valuable principles which that House possessed, and which
should never be lost sight of, viz: the right of every member to
exercise his discretion upon every question, appropriations as well as
others, which came before him. Did not the gentleman know that the most
solemn decision had taken place last session on this subject, by a large
majority? Indeed, said he, this sentiment was so ingrafted in the
constitution that the House could not divest themselves of it; for the
gentleman to say they did not possess it, was to make a dead letter of
their privileges. There could be no doubt on the subject; and it was a
sacred and essential principle which would go further to preserve our
liberties than any other which they possessed. He trusted, therefore,
they should guard it with special care.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he did not mean to follow the gentleman from
Massachusetts in what he had said on this subject, because he had not
felt the force of what he had advanced, nor very well understood what he
meant. Both his meaning and his motive for bringing this subject before
them to-day were to him mysterious. He had brought before them the
Treaty question anew, and it would be recollected what were the feelings
of the House on that occasion; but he could see no relation which it
bore to the present question; and though a number of members in that
House had asserted that they were bound to appropriate money to carry a
treaty into effect, he did not believe they were ready to say the same
with respect to laws.

The gentleman from Massachusetts had said, that if they put a meaning
upon the constitution in this respect different from him, that they
arrogated the supreme power to themselves. Did not he know that the
doctrine applied to the Senate as well as to that House? and did he not
see that that would be a check upon the abuse of it in either House,
since it was a weapon which both could use?

The gentleman had said they were bound to obey the law. Bound to obey
what law? The law for authorizing the building of the three frigates? He
did not understand how this law was to bind them. This was a mere
administrative law, which did not extend to the citizens of the United
States, but gave power to the PRESIDENT to do a certain act; therefore,
as citizens, they had nothing to do with that law, except they were to
obey it by appropriating the money necessary to carry it into effect.
Yet the gentleman allowed there might be cases in which it would be
right to use discretion in the appropriation of money. For his part, he
did not understand the being bound and not bound at the same time; to
have discretion and no discretion. He wished either that the one or the
other opinion might be adopted; and that they might be told that they
had, or that they had not, a right to exercise discretion in the
appropriation of money. If this exercise were to be allowed in any case,
why could it not be allowed in the present? He wondered, therefore, that
gentlemen in favor of this motion should have touched upon this ground.
He agreed with the gentleman that they had this discretion, and that it
ought to be used with caution, and not upon trifling occasions. But he
conceived this to be one of those occasions in which it was necessary
for those opposed to a Naval Establishment, to vote against this
appropriation. He meant against the appropriation in its extent. It was
because he considered a Naval Establishment as highly injurious to the
interests of this country, he should vote against every measure which
had a tendency to produce it. That gentleman, and others who thought
differently, would vote accordingly.

Mr. G. moved an amendment, viz: that before the word "frigates," to add
"the hulls of." On the question, ayes 45, noes 44--the Chairman giving
his vote against the amendment, it was not carried. It was then put in
the original form, to finish the frigates, the sum of ---- dollars, and
carried--ayes 54.

The question on the blank being filled with $172,000 was then put, and
carried--ayes 47.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to add an item to pay the bounty of one hundred
dollars which they had agreed should be paid to every officer discharged
from the military service in consequence of the regulations which had
taken place in the establishment.

This item was filled up with three thousand dollars.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to add the following words: "which several sums shall
be solely applied to the objects for which they are respectively
appropriated."

Mr. W. SMITH wished, as much as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to
confine the expenditure to the sums appropriated; but the provision for
some objects might fall short, while others might have a surplus, which
he thought ought to be made use of to supply deficiencies in cases of
emergency. Ever since the establishment of the present Government, the
whole appropriation for the Military Establishment had been considered
as an aggregate fund out of which any of the objects of that
establishment might be paid for; but the expense of each object was now
to be confined to the specific appropriation. He was afraid, however
well this might look in theory, it would be found very mischievous in
practice. He wished the gentleman would amend his proposition by adding,
"so far as may be consistent with public exigency;" this would restrict
the expenditures, except in unforeseen cases of emergency, to provide
for which some latitude of discretion ought to be left to the Executive.

Mr. SITGREAVES did not see the necessity or propriety of the amendment
of his colleague, when the House had distributed the appropriations
amongst the different objects; as the amendment, he conceived, meant
nothing more than the department should not expend any more than the sum
appropriated for the different items, which they had no right to do if
there were no amendment. Heretofore, when appropriations were made in a
mass, the Secretary of War did not feel himself bound to govern himself
by the estimate which he had given in, but by particularizing the
different items, the former evil was corrected.

Mr. GALLATIN said, if the fact was exactly as it had been stated by his
colleague, his amendment might be unnecessary, but the Treasury
Department had not acted upon the principle which he had stated. They
had, notwithstanding the distribution of the appropriation, thought
themselves at liberty to take the money from an item where there was a
surplus, and apply it to another, where it was wanted. And when this was
objected to, as taking from the Legislature their appropriating power,
they answered that the Legislature had entered so much into detail that
they could not attend to their directions. They had, last session, made
the appropriations more specific than at present, yet the Secretary of
the Treasury, in a letter written to the House during this session,
said, "that it was well known to have been a rule since the
establishment of the Government, that the appropriations for the
Military Establishment were considered as general grants of money,
liable to be issued to any of the objects included under that
department." Therefore, unless this amendment was introduced, it would
leave the power as before. In order to make the business more easy, all
the contingent expenses were appropriated in one sum.

The object of this amendment, said Mr. G., was that no part of the pay
of the Army should go to the Quartermaster's Department, &c., and that
none of them should go to the building or equipping the frigates; but if
this were not the case, money might be found to get the frigates to sea
from the appropriations for the Military Department, if the PRESIDENT
should think it necessary so to apply it. As to the amendment, it would
do away the intention of it altogether.

Mr. HARPER was against the amendment. He thought the Department ought to
be at liberty, in case of an appropriation proving deficient, to have
recourse to other funds where there might be a surplus, and as none
would be taken, except where there was a surplus, he could see no
objection to this being allowed. Indeed, for want of such a privilege
very serious inconveniences might arise to the service, in case of
accident or unforeseen events.

Mr. GALLATIN said, the law did not operate in the manner which the
gentleman last up supposed. They had lately voted a sum of forty
thousand dollars to make good a deficiency of last year, which had been
used for some other purpose; in consequence the deficiency fell upon the
pay of the Army, although that could not increase, because the number of
men was never increased; it might be less, as the nominal, not the
actual number of men was appropriated for.

Mr. KITTERA thought the amendment a bad one. Suppose, said he, a boat
should be overset with tents in the lake, or a magazine blown up, the
losses could not be repaired, because, though there might be surplus
sums in the Treasury from other items in the establishment, yet, if this
amendment prevailed, they could not be touched. He thought this would be
the effect; he was against innovations.

The amendment was put and carried, there being fifty-four votes in favor
of it.

The committee then rose, and the House took up the amendments.

And then the main question, "to finish the frigates ---- dollars," was
taken by yeas and nays, as follows:

      YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Theophilus Bradbury,
      Richard Brent, Daniel Buck, Dempsey Burges, Joshua Coit,
      William Cooper, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James
      Davenport, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, George Ege, William
      Findlay, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Nathaniel Freeman,
      jr., Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn,
      Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, Robert
      Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, John
      Heath, William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, Edward
      Livingston, Samuel Lyman, Francis Malbone, John Milledge,
      Frederick A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John
      Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Elisha R.
      Potter, John Read, Samuel Sewall, Samuel Sitgreaves,
      Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, William
      Smith, Thomas Sprigg, John Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift,
      George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, John A. Van
      Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg
      Wadsworth, and John Williams.

      NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, David Bard, Thomas Blount, Nathan
      Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Thomas
      Claiborne, John Clopton, Isaac Coles, Jesse Franklin,
      Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Christopher Greenup,
      Andrew Gregg, Wade Hampton, John Hathorn, Jonathan N.
      Havens, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, George Jackson,
      Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel
      Macon, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, John Patton, John
      Richards, Israel Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., William
      Strudwick, and Abraham Venable.

The question to fill the blank with $178,000 was then put and
carried--ayes 47, noes 42, and the bill ordered for a third reading
to-morrow.


FRIDAY, March 3.

_Call for Statements._

Mr. GALLATIN said, he wished to propose to the House three resolutions,
calling for statements relative to the War Department, which he wished
to be laid before the House at the next session. They had heard it said
upon that floor, by gentlemen who were considered to be well acquainted
with the subject, that many expenses had taken place in that Department
which ought to have been checked. Conceiving a check of this kind to be
necessary, and knowing the expense of the Military Department was
increasing from year to year, beyond what the increase in the number of
troops would warrant, it was proper to lay the foundation of an inquiry
into the subject. Indeed, having just passed a pretty severe law
relative to the Receivers of Public Money, and understanding that the
Secretary of the Treasury had a long list of delinquents, he was
desirous of taking some steps in the business. From these
considerations, he offered the following resolutions for acceptance:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed
      to lay before the House of Representatives, within the
      first week of January next, abstracts of the accounts of
      all paymasters, quartermasters, contractors, agents for the
      purchase of supplies, and generally of all the Receivers of
      Public Moneys, paid from the Treasury from the 1st of
      January, 1791, to the 1st of January, 1797, on account of
      the Military Establishment, so as to exhibit a detailed
      statement of the whole amount of moneys thus expended to
      that period; and whether any of the accounts be not finally
      settled; and shall lay before the House an estimate of
      moneys not accounted for.

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed
      to lay, at the same time, before the House of
      Representatives similar abstracts of the accounts of all
      the Receivers of Public Money expended for the building of
      the frigates.

      "_Resolved_, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of
      the Treasury to lay before the House of Representatives,
      within the last week of January in each year, a statement
      of money expended for the Military Establishment during the
      next preceding year, distinguishing the sums expended under
      each head, for which specific appropriations have been
      made, and an estimate of the probable unsettled demands in
      relation to each of those heads."

The resolutions were severally agreed to.


EVENING SESSION.

_Military and Naval Appropriations._

The bill appropriating money for the Military and Naval Establishments,
was received from the Senate with an amendment, proposing to do away the
restriction which had been introduced into the bill to confine the
expenditure of money to the specific objects for which each sum is
appropriated.

Mr. DANA hoped the House would recede from the amendment.

Mr. GALLATIN said that, by the constitution, no money was to be granted
but by a law passed in the regular mode. Now, said Mr. G., this is not
by law, if, after a certain sum is granted for one item, it be not used
for that purpose, but put to some other object. This was certainly
according to the spirit of the constitution, and if you do not strictly
abide by that, you may as well set aside the constitution, and say we
will appropriate $6,000,000 for the support of Government for the
present year. If we mean to carry the constitution into effect we must
reject the amendment.

Mr. SITGREAVES observed, that his opinion on this point was, that the
House had a constitutional power to depart from any identifying of
articles to sums granted, and that departure grew out of necessity; for
the extreme embarrassment which would attend the practice of a strict
adherence, would render it impracticable. But, as he did not mean to
stand responsible for the motion, he should be satisfied with calling
for the yeas and nays; which were agreed to be taken.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought, that when gentlemen went on supporting such
unlimited measures as had lately taken place, and voting such a waste of
money, it would be very dangerous. When we see large sums voted for an
army and navy in time of peace, said he, it would justify us in adopting
some regulation to prevent it. The difference between the operation of
this and the other mode is, that in this you confine your public
officers to the identical object for which a sum is appropriated;
otherwise they might use what they would call overplus money for any
object they might think fit. According to this method, proposed by the
Senate, any sum may be taken from any certain object, and placed to any
other, which Mr. N. thought too unbounded a power to be placed in the
Executive.

Mr. PARKER said, he would not pretend to justify the expenditure on the
Military Establishment, but he could not help observing that the
casualties to which the forage and clothing, &c., which is transported
to our garrisons, are exposed, are very great. Though at peace with the
Indians, it is but a temporary one, and we cannot be sure they will not
intercept our stores; besides other accidents to which it is exposed,
all which make it necessary that the hands of the Executive should not
be tied from using the surplusage of some, for the accidental and
unforeseen deficiencies of others; without this the Army may be exposed
to the most poignant distress, owing to a deficiency in the
appropriation, while the Treasury has money in hand as surplus from
other objects. Considering the great importance of an appropriation, he
hoped gentlemen would not so incline to oppose the bill, especially,
said he, when our existence will not, as a Legislative body, be more
than four hours, and, in that time, it must pass other authorities
before it can be put into effect; if it is lost, the effects will be
bad. Mr. P. said he had as many scruples as any gentleman, and would
take every measure to preserve the constitution inviolate, but he should
be sorry if, under the fear of offending it, the Government should be
stopped.

Mr. HEATH.--If my existence was to be but for one moment, I would stand
here and oppose this resolution; to let it pass, is precluding the
freedom of inquiry into the conduct of our public officers. If we were
to commence this loose kind of a way of appropriating, we may go on to
do this, that, and the other, until we were too far to stop. Were we to
indulge ourselves to go into the wide fields of accident, we might
suppose this and that, but our imaginations would have no end. He
lamented the shortness of the time they had to discuss it.

Mr. GILBERT acknowledged this was the age of reason, but he was sorry
the House should be inclined to adopt an entire new doctrine of
privileges. We should not hazard a new position, when it may be attended
with the greatest danger; therefore he hoped they would agree with the
Senate.

Mr. HARPER thought it would not be very difficult to convince gentlemen
who oppose it, that the amendment was calculated to secure the very
object they wished. It was not a violation of the constitution, as some
gentlemen supposed. He would ask, could not an appropriation be made for
the use of the Military Establishment in general terms? Yes, he would
answer; else how could an appropriation in general terms have been made
for the intercourse with foreign nations? Certainly it could not be
unconstitutional to appropriate the overplus of one article to supply
the deficiency of another. One moment's reflection, Mr. H. thought,
would convince members of the error of a contrary opinion. It might not
be safe to do it without law, but here is a law allowing it. The whole
must suffer if the War Department is deficient, which cannot be avoided
if one is not to assist another branch, for it is scarce possible to
guard against every contingency. He thought the amendment beneficial in
the highest degree, and without it, would stop the War Department in its
operations. He hoped no delay would take place, as it endangered the
bill.

Mr. VARNUM said, that notwithstanding all that gentlemen might produce
to prove the necessity of giving the Executive large powers, yet it was
dangerous; he instanced that, if the Executive were determined to man
and equip the frigates for sea, they would have power to do it from
money appropriated, and intended for other purposes; thus it was
transferring a power, solely vested in the Legislature, into the
Executive Department. He thought it was an infringement on the
constitution; it was putting the power where it never was intended to
be; although he had great respect for that department, yet he did not
wish to see its powers extended too far. A gentleman had intimated he
should not wish the bill to be altered, if he was sure there would not
be war with the Indians. He would answer that there could not be a war
until the Legislature met again.

Mr. V. said, that there was one-fifth more money appropriated than could
be used before the next meeting of Congress, for there would be two
months of the present year's appropriation, during any part of which
another bill might be passed.

Mr. SWANWICK thought there was no danger of the bill being lost; it was
necessary to discuss a principle which appeared to admit of danger; it
was throwing the whole of the money to the mercy of the Treasury
Department.

Mr. PAGE said he should vote for the amendment, but he rose to express
his disapprobation of it, and he should have been glad if there was time
to make another bill. We must either suffer the community to abide under
great disadvantages, or ourselves. If they could exist, politically, he
said he should be happy to destroy that bill. He must acknowledge that
it was crammed down his throat.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, that the reasons urged by the gentleman from
Massachusetts, instead of the end he proposed, would have a contrary
effect. Mr. L. believed that this amendment had a tendency to lessen the
privileges of the House; believing this, no object of convenience, no
view to the general opinion, should ever prevent him voting against it.
He believed it pregnant with mischief. The Civil and Military
Departments would be too easily connected; if the one wanted assistance,
while the Treasury had money in hand it would be supplied. He thought
the House had voted sufficient to answer every purpose intended, and he
believed, whatever specious arguments may be used, the House would not
recede. If any evil attended, he was willing to take his part of the
blame; but he was not apprehensive of any.

Mr. W. LYMAN hoped it would not pass, as it was full of danger and bad
principles.

Mr. W. SMITH said, the appropriation to the Military Establishment had
always been considered a general grant of money; therefore it would
introduce no new principles, but the manner of this bill, passed in this
House the day before the close of the session, and sent up to the Senate
the very day of the adjournment.

Mr. S. said gentlemen talked about the constitution, but he thought they
had wrong ideas of the evils of this business: it was not whether they
gave too much power to their officers, but the Military Establishment
could not go on; then the PRESIDENT would be obliged to alarm the whole
nation, and incur a vast expense to get the Congress together, and all
for want of due time and regulations: and now we must cram it down the
throats of the Senate. Surely gentlemen should have some moderation, and
not be so hightoned as to prevent any other branch of the Legislature
from exercising their powers as well as us.

On the question being taken to concur with this amendment, the yeas and
nays stood, 38 to 52, as follows:

      YEAS.--Theophilus Bradbury, Daniel Buck, Dempsey Burges,
      Joshua Coit, Wm. Cooper, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana,
      James Davenport, George Dent, George Ege, Abiel Foster,
      Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Chauncey
      Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas
      Hartley, William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, George
      Leonard, Samuel Lyman, Francis Malbone, John Page, Josiah
      Parker, Samuel Sewall, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith,
      Isaac Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, George
      Thatcher, Richard Thomas, John E. Van Allen, Peleg
      Wadsworth, and John Williams.

      NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
      Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J.
      Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton,
      Isaac Coles, Henry Dearborn, William Findlay, Jesse
      Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, James
      Gillespie, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Wade Hampton,
      John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, James
      Holland, Andrew Jackson, 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 Patten, Elisha R. Potter, John Read,
      John Richards, Robert Rutherford, John S. Sherburne,
      Thompson J. Skinner, Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sprigg,
      William Strudwick, John Swanwick, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham
      Venable, and Richard Winn.

The bill was again sent to the Senate, and was soon after returned with
the amendment receded from.

_General Lafayette._

Mr. HARPER moved that a resolution, which he laid on the table
yesterday, respecting Major General Lafayette, should be taken up for
consideration. The motion was seconded by Mr. W. SMITH. The resolution
was in the following words:

      "This House, strongly impressed with a just sense of the
      important and disinterested services rendered to their
      country during the late war by their fellow-citizen, Major
      General Lafayette, and deeply regretting the sufferings to
      which he is now subjected from a long and rigorous
      imprisonment, and which have equally excited their
      sympathy, and the ardent wish of their constituents for his
      deliverance, do resolve that the President of the United
      States be informed, that this House will see with the
      highest satisfaction, any measures which he may deem
      expedient to adopt towards effecting the restoration of
      their said fellow-citizen to liberty."

The question was taken for the House to take it up, and lost--ayes 32,
noes 52.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said he had some time been wishing to put forward
something similar; he really hoped some negotiation would be carried on
to effect his liberation. It would be honorable to this country to
interpose in behalf of this man, who has a claim on American service.
While suffering for us on his part, let gratitude, and every feeling
that can affect the heart, be ours. Abandoned by his own country, and to
increase his sufferings, precluded from almost every enjoyment of life,
it would be honorable in us to interest ourselves in his behalf,
appropriating some small sum which may enable the PRESIDENT to make some
progress towards his releasement. Thus, while it is honorable to
America, if it has no effect, it may afford some comfort to the
unfortunate sufferer, to think he is not forgotten. He then proposed a
resolution, not materially varying from that just offered by Mr. HARPER,
hoping that the little variation would prevent it suffering a similar
fate.

Mr. PARKER said, as it was a personal question, he hoped it would lie on
the table.

Mr. COIT thought it a delicate question, and one which ought not to be
agitated, and therefore moved the previous question.

Mr. HARTLEY spoke of Mr. PARKER's observing its personality. He answered
that the man suffered much for this country, and therefore was entitled
to regard. He acknowledged with Mr. COIT, that there was much delicacy
in the business, and therefore hoped it would speedily be discussed; it
ought not be postponed; the man is now suffering in a most distressing
confinement. If any of the soldiers of 1789 were here with whom he was
in council, there would not be a dissenting voice to using every
exertion. He hoped the House would never forget such brilliant services.

Mr. SWANWICK said, there need not be a dissenting voice, but we ought to
be cautious how we multiply our negotiations, as this could not be done
without entering into a negotiation with the Emperor of Germany in the
regular way. It is not want of respect that should prevent us, but are
we provided to go into all the consequences attending a new negotiation?
There is a delicacy in it, of which we ought to be careful. There is not
the least doubt but the PRESIDENT has as much desire for his release as
any gentleman, but he, no doubt, deliberated, and saw the danger of it.
Mr. S. said he lamented our foreign negotiations _in toto_. There was no
good derived from them, and he could not anticipate any from new ones.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he felt as much disposition to take measures for his
release as any man, but he thought the business undertaken too hastily.
Suppose you give instructions to the PRESIDENT, and he does not think
proper to act on it, so far from being a compliment to Lafayette, it
would hurt his mind, should he hear it had been agitated.

Mr. CLAIBORNE saw no difficulty attending the resolution. He hoped the
House would render this essential service to the unfortunate sufferer,
if even in the last hour of the Congress.

Mr. CHRISTIE said, it was an improper time to take up the resolution,
but as they had to sit there two or three hours longer and no business
to do, this might as well occupy the attention of the House as not.

Mr. LIVINGSTON would be sorry to impose a burden upon the country, but
he thought this a duty incumbent on them. He hoped gentlemen would
openly come forward and avow their sentiments, and not shelter
themselves under the previous question. Remember, he came here from the
pompous ease of a foreign court; he voluntarily served the cause of
America, and bled for her; he, in a great measure, procured the interest
which formed the alliance with France in our defence; besides spending a
princely fortune in our cause, he asked nothing, nor would accept any
compensation for his services: and now he is abandoned to the most
dreadful situation possible; some of that compensation, justly due to
his services, is refused him as a balm to his former woes by not
attempting his release. This is the situation of the man for whom this
House is asked only to express their desire for his comfort; this is the
man who was met with pleasure in every part of the United States; all
the people rejoiced to express their gratitude to him; he was
accompanied with testimonials of admiration and thanks from the whole
Continent: and now we should not say that we will feel with pleasure
measures taken towards obtaining his liberty! We can pity him, and
regret his situation, but refuse to lend him the least assistance to
soothe his distress. We do not call upon the House to vent its infantine
sorrow, to show its womanish pity. No. We call on it to express a will,
predominant throughout the United States, in the behalf of this
unfortunate man. But it is said that we should get the ill will of the
nations who persecuted him. Unless they bid adieu to all the tender
feelings of humanity, they never can take offence. It has been also
supposed it would be ineffectual; he had no doubt but the Executive
would take those measures which would be most effectual and least
endangering to the nation; it could not make the situation of the
sufferer worse, and if we succeed in procuring his liberty, it would
give pleasure to every heart who can sympathize with the distressed, or
feel gratitude for high obligations: and if it does not have that happy
effect, still we may feel consolation at having done our duty. If these
measures were taken, it would illuminate the loathsome horrors of a
dungeon the most dreadful; it would sweep away the reproach "that
Republicans know no gratitude;" that we, who had his best exertions
whilst in prosperity, do not forget him in adversity. Mr. L. said he
really believed that if he had not known the principles of liberty here,
and helped us in our struggle for it, he would have never existed in
misery in the dungeon at Olmutz, and therefore the highest obligations
were laid on the United States to exert herself in his behalf.

Mr. HEATH hoped, that, although the gentleman had labored to excite the
pathetic, yet he would not charge the House with a want of Republicanism
if the measure was not adopted. Mr. H. thought it extremely improper to
be introduced in the House. He said the PRESIDENT knew the will of the
United States on the subject, and therefore, if he saw proper, he could
take it up. He hoped the gentleman would remember this was a complicated
case; for, since he had left this country, he had become a citizen of
another country. Mr. H. said he felt for his unfortunate situation: he
had fought under his banner. We are not to be charged with a want of
patriotism and feeling for this suffering hero, because we think it
imprudent to interest and involve ourselves in his behalf, merely to
indulge the flighty fancy of a few individuals. We might go, said he,
and address the PRESIDENT to exert himself as far as he saw proper in
his behalf, as a body of individuals, but not as a Legislature.

Mr. W. SMITH could see no kind of impropriety in the measure. It had
been said it was a new subject, and, therefore, ought not to be taken up
now; but it was not introduced yesterday! Did gentlemen want an age to
express an opinion which every member feels--which the whole nation
feels? The motion only went to express a wish that measures may be taken
according to the judgment of the Executive: if he had a thought or wish
to adopt measures, this would encourage him to carry them into effect.
Europe might feel a pleasure that we interested ourselves in his behalf.
Did he not embark his all for this country? It has been well said, said
Mr. S., that if the motion had been made in 1779 or 1780, no previous
question would then have been called--no opposition then made. Read the
journals of the National Representation for 1780 and 1783: there we find
one member from each State was appointed to take leave of him in behalf
of the whole. [Mr. S. here read the journals of that time, which insert
at length the proceeding, address, and answer, attending the
transaction.] There, said he, they expressed their zeal for his future
welfare, and gratitude for his favors, accompanying it with a letter to
the French King, requesting him to bestow his favors upon him. From the
frequent respectful mention made of his services on the journals of the
House, there appears to have been much attention paid to his services by
Congress. Even the Parliament of Great Britain, he said, had discussed
the question of his confinement; and should this House refuse, who are
so much obliged by his services? Nothing that had been said, in
opposition to it, could convince him but that we were called upon, by
every tie of gratitude, to adopt the measure. The satisfaction of
knowing that his services are not forgotten may render him more
comfortable in his dungeon--may follow him into the deserts of Siberia,
or wherever the cruel hand of oppression may send him.

Mr. MADISON did not think there was time to do all the business
requisite to render due justice to the motion, and he hoped the House
would do more than was intended by the motion. He believed the only
regular mode would be to appoint a committee to bring in a bill. He
therefore moved that the House go into committee for that purpose.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, according to the motion there was no necessity for
this mode, as it was of a nature not to require the aid of another
branch of the Legislature; it was quite sufficient if the House passed
the resolution. He was sorry to hear the previous question called for to
get rid of the subject, but he hoped it would not prevail: he thought
this motion required early attention. He said attention was due to
LAFAYETTE; America was highly indebted to him. It is a debt of justice,
and ought to be paid; and while this House delays to interpose in his
behalf he must remain in confinement. Those gentlemen who thought the
House ought to interpose should think this is the very time, if any good
is intended to be done: he therefore hoped they would not delay.

Mr. HARPER said, if the subject was on the sending an ambassador to
negotiate for the liberation of this man, it might with more propriety
be opposed. He was surprised that any gentleman in the House should be
opposed to expressing a wish for measures to be taken which may prove
effectual for that purpose.

When he had no need of our caresses, the United States resounded with
his name: he was then met with tokens of respect and congratulation
wherever he went. But now, pining under the cruel hand of despotic
vengeance in a loathsome dungeon, weighed down by chains, with a scanty
allowance; when we view his present, contrasted with his past,
situation--embarking from the magnificent splendor of a French court,
displeasing his sovereign--embarking himself, and hazarding every thing
that was dear to him, in support of American liberty--is this the man,
Mr. H. would ask, to whom America said, he should never cease to have
her best wishes and endeavors for his good, when, in the most grievous
captivity, we refuse to express a desire for a morsel of comfort to his
depressed mind! What avail our toasts--our boasted recollections of him,
and regret at his fate--if we take not every opportunity to alleviate
that distress? But the worst of his misfortunes is not to lie in a
dungeon: he is now racked with a fear of being sent into the
inhospitable deserts of Siberia, whence is no hope ever to expect his
return into the civilized world; and, with this unwelcome intelligence,
the American Legislature refuses to express a wish for his deliverance!
Who knows but the power in whose custody he is may expect America to
interest herself in his favor? And by a pretext like this he might be
liberated, or at least his fear of removal dissipated, and his present
misery alleviated. Mr. H. said he was sure it would be highly gratifying
to the citizens of America to hear of the measure; they had long
expected it, and, if undertaken, he had the greatest hopes of its
success, in a measure. If it should but tend to soften his present
distress, it would be a happiness; but if its effects should be to
restore to liberty one to whom America is so much indebted, it would
amply repay whatsoever trouble is taken towards its accomplishment.

Mr. W. LYMAN did not doubt of the services of the Marquis Lafayette; he
was always the subject of adoration and the toast of this country.
Besides, it has made him liberal grants for his services, and he thought
there could be no proof that we were wanting in marks of esteem for him.
With respect to the motion, Mr. L. asked, to whom was application to be
made? Does any gentleman on this floor know who confined him, or by
order of what government? No court are willing to avow it. Britain,
France, and Prussia disavow it, and he believed the Emperor also. Until
that was clear, the measure would be improper. May not the agitation of
such a question in the House awaken a jealousy in some of those powers
towards us, which may militate to our injury, and injure the man whom
the attempt is meant to serve? Gentlemen have depicted his sufferings in
very lively colors, said Mr. L., and were it in my power, or were it
consistently in the power of the House, I should be very happy to afford
relief. Until some of the difficulties in its way were cleared, he said,
he should be forced to put his negative to it. He thought gentlemen who
saw the matter so necessary, and the way so clear, had reason to
reproach themselves for letting it sleep so long, and for having
introduced it at the last hour of the session of the Houses.

Mr. HARPER and Mr. LIVINGSTON said that nothing but the constant press
of public business had prevented their motions sooner, and they thought
there was even now time enough, as it only required the expression of a
desire of the House for the object.

Mr. BUCK said the services and sufferings of the Marquis were indelibly
written on the hearts of all the citizens of America, and he thought
there was no need of that torrent of oratory which had been displayed to
affect the feelings of the House. He thought it would prove its weakness
to suffer its feelings to predominate. We ought to give a decision only
by the force of judgment, after due deliberation; for _feeling_ could
not look forward to consequences. Were we implicitly to obey it, we
should take many bad steps. Do we not know, said Mr. B., that he is
among the persons proscribed by France? and, considering the very
brittle situation of our peace with that country at present, we should
be induced rather to strengthen than weaken our ties; for the motion
goes to authorize the PRESIDENT to take _any_ measures to support
Lafayette. This being the situation, we know not where the measures may
end, and it would be a serious thing to be plunged in a war with France
on that account. He hoped the House would not precipitate the business,
but give themselves time to examine the consequences. This, Mr. B. said,
had induced him to oppose the motion. Though congenial to his feelings,
he therefore should vote for the previous, and against the main
question.

Mr. CLAIBORNE was against the previous question. He would hazard any
thing for the happiness of a man we owe so much to--who sees, said he,
the unfortunate man with his lady and daughter, under all the miseries
that despotism and tyranny can inflict, in a wretched dungeon, without
even the comforts of life! Here he appealed to the feelings of the
members in a very forcible manner, and, with the most bitter invective,
ardently wished the destruction of his cruel oppressors. He observed on
the uneasiness the members of the House were in if public business
detained them half an hour after the usual time of their dinners, and
applied the case to this unfortunate man in continual confinement, and
after all with miserable fare.

The previous question was then put, "Shall the main question be now
put?" and negatived--ayes 25.

Mr. LIVINGSTON then brought forward a similar resolution, which caused
very considerable debate, and was at length got rid of by the previous
question. The principal objection to the adoption of this motion seemed
to be the late period at which it was brought forward. All were agreed
as to the merits and the misfortunes of the man, and had the motion been
introduced at any other time than on the eve of the rising of the
session, there could be little doubt it would have been agreed to by a
very large majority.[13]

_Thanks to the Speaker._

Mr. BLOUNT said he wished to offer a resolution to the House, which, as
he was certain there could be no opposition to it, would occupy little
of their time. He should wish the Clerk to read it, and take the sense
of the House upon it. It was in the following words:

      "_Resolved_, That the thanks of this House be presented to
      JONATHAN DAYTON, in testimony of their approbation of his
      conduct in discharging the arduous and important duties
      assigned him while in the chair."

The Clerk accordingly put the resolution, and it was unanimously
carried; when--

The SPEAKER thus addressed the House:

      "GENTLEMEN: I feel myself deeply impressed with this fresh
      proof of your approbation of my conduct in the chair. The
      confidence and support which you have in every instance
      afforded me, in the station assigned to me, have alone
      enabled me to discharge the important duty with
      satisfaction to myself, and with advantage to the public."

_Adjournment of the Session._

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that they
had appointed a committee to join a committee of that House, to wait
upon the PRESIDENT to inform him they had finished their business, and,
except he had any further communications to make, they were ready to
adjourn, without day.

The House then agreed to appoint a committee to join that of the Senate
to wait upon the PRESIDENT, and Messrs. SITGREAVES, PARKER, and
SHERBURNE being named, they accordingly waited upon the PRESIDENT; and--

Mr. SITGREAVES reported that the PRESIDENT had no further communication
to make, except "that he wished them a happy return to their families
and friends."

The SPEAKER then adjourned the House _sine die_, at about eleven
o'clock.[14]




FIFTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, MAY 15, 1797.[15]

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,--JOHN ADAMS.


LIST OF MEMBERS.


SENATORS.

_New Hampshire._--John Langdon, S. Livermore.

_Vermont._--Nathaniel Chipman, Elijah Paine.

_Massachusetts._--Benj. Goodhue, Theodore Sedgwick.

_Rhode Island._--Theodore Foster, Ray Greene.

_Connecticut._--James Hillhouse, Uriah Tracy.

_New York._--John S. Hobart, John Laurance.

_New Jersey._--John Rutherford, R. Stockton.

_Pennsylvania._--William Bingham, James Ross.

_Delaware._--Henry Latimer, John Vining.

_Maryland._--John E. Howard, James Lloyd,

_Virginia._--Stevens T. Mason, Henry Tazewell.

_North Carolina._--Timothy Bloodworth, Alexander Martin.

_South Carolina._--John Hunter, Jacob Read.

_Georgia._--James Gunn, Josiah Tattnall.

_Tennessee._--Joseph Anderson, Andrew Jackson.

_Kentucky._--John Brown, Humphrey Marshall.


REPRESENTATIVES.

_New Hampshire._--Abiel Foster, Jonathan Freeman, William Gordon, Peleg
Sprague.

_Vermont._--Matthew Lyon, Lewis B. Morris.

_Massachusetts._-Bailey Bartlett, Stephen Bullock, Dwight Foster,
Nathaniel Freeman, Samuel Lyman, Harrison G. Otis, John Read, Samuel
Sewall, William Shepard, Thompson J. Skinner, George Thatcher, Joseph B.
Varnum, P. Wadsworth.

_Rhode Island._--C. G. Champlin, Thomas Tillinghast.

_Connecticut._--John Allen, Jona. Brace, Joshua Coit, Samuel W. Dana,
James Davenport, O. Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Nathaniel Smith.

_New York._--David Brooks, John Cochran, Lucas Elmendorph, Henry Glenn,
J. N. Havens, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, E. Livingston, John E. Van Allen,
Philip Van Cortlandt, John Williams.

_New Jersey._--Jona. Dayton, James H. Imlay, James Schureman, Thomas
Sinnickson, Mark Thompson.

_Pennsylvania._--David Bard, Robert Brown, John Chapman, William
Findlay, Albert Gallatin, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Thomas Hartley,
Joseph Heister, John W. Kittera, Blair McClenachan, Samuel Sitgreaves,
John Swanwick, Richard Thomas.

_Delaware._--James A. Bayard.

_Maryland._--George Baer, William Craik, John Dennis, George Dent,
William Hindman, William Matthews, Samuel Smith, Richard Sprigg.

_Virginia._--Richard Brent, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew
Clay, John Clopton, Isaac Coles, John Dawson, Thomas Evans, Carter B.
Harrison, David Holmes, Walter Jones, James Machir, Daniel Morgan,
Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, A.
B. Venable.

_North Carolina._--Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, James
Gillespie, William B. Grove, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph
McDowell, Richard Stanford, Robert Williams.

_South Carolina._--Lemuel Benton, R. G. Harper, Thomas Pinckney, John
Rutledge, William Smith, Thomas Sumter.

_Georgia._--A. Baldwin, John Milledge.

_Tennessee._--William C. C. Claiborne.

_Kentucky._--Thomas T. Davis, John Fowler.




PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


The first session of the Fifth Congress, under the Constitution of
Government of the United States, commenced at the city of Philadelphia,
agreeably to the Proclamation of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of
the twenty-fifth day of March last, and the Senate accordingly assembled
on this day, being


MONDAY, May 15, 1797.

PRESENT:

THOMAS JEFFERSON, Vice President of the United States, and President of
the Senate.

JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire.

BENJAMIN GOODHUE, from Massachusetts.

THEODORE FOSTER and WILLIAM BRADFORD, from Rhode Island.

JAMES HILLHOUSE and URIAH TRACY, from Connecticut.

ISAAC TICHENOR, from Vermont.

JOHN LAURANCE, from New York.

WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania.

HENRY LATIMER, from Delaware.

JOHN E. HOWARD, from Maryland.

STEVENS T. MASON, from Virginia.

ALEXANDER MARTIN and TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from North Carolina.

JOHN HUNTER, from South Carolina.

JOSIAH TATTNALL, from Georgia.

The Senators whose names are subjoined produced their credentials on the
4th day of March last, and took their seats in the Senate, viz: Mr.
FOSTER, Mr. GOODHUE, Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. HOWARD, Mr. LATIMER, Mr. MASON,
Mr. ROSS, and Mr. TICHENOR.

WILLIAM COOKE, appointed a Senator by the State of Tennessee, produced
his credentials, and the oath required by law being administered, he
took his seat in the Senate.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, and acquaint him that a quorum of the Senate is assembled.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that
a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that a
quorum of the House is assembled, and have elected JONATHAN DAYTON their
Speaker.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have appointed a joint committee on their part, together with such
committee as the Senate may appoint, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, and inform 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.

_Resolved_, That the Senate do concur in the appointment of a joint
committee, and that Messrs. LIVERMORE and LANGDON be the joint committee
on the part of the Senate.

Mr. LIVERMORE reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited
on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and had notified him that a
quorum of the two Houses is assembled; and that 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, May 16.

WILLIAM BLOUNT, from the State of Tennessee; THEODORE SEDGWICK, from the
State of Massachusetts; and JOHN VINING, from the State of Delaware,
severally 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 returned to their own Chamber, and a copy of the Speech of
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, this day addressed to both Houses of
Congress, was read.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      The personal inconveniences to the members of the Senate,
      and of the House of Representatives, in leaving their
      families and private affairs, at this season of the year,
      are so obvious, that I the more regret the extraordinary
      occasion which has rendered the convention of Congress
      indispensable.

      It would have afforded me the highest satisfaction to have
      been able to congratulate you on a restoration of peace to
      the nations of Europe, whose animosities have endangered
      our tranquillity; but we have still abundant cause of
      gratitude to the Supreme Dispenser of national blessings,
      for general health and promising seasons; for domestic and
      social happiness; for the rapid progress and ample
      acquisitions of industry, through extensive territories;
      for civil, political, and religious liberty. While other
      States are desolated with foreign war, or convulsed with
      intestine divisions, the United States present the pleasing
      prospect of a nation governed by mild and equal laws,
      generally satisfied with the possession of their rights;
      neither envying the advantages nor fearing the power of
      other nations; solicitous only for the maintenance of order
      and justice, and the preservation of liberty; increasing
      daily in their attachment to a system of government in
      proportion to their experience of its utility; yielding a
      ready and general obedience to laws flowing from the
      reason, and resting on the only solid foundation--the
      affections of the people.

      It is with extreme regret that I shall be obliged to turn
      your thoughts to other circumstances, which admonish us
      that some of these felicities may not be lasting; but, if
      the tide of our prosperity is full, and a reflux
      commencing, a vigilant circumspection becomes us, that we
      may meet our reverses with fortitude, and extricate
      ourselves from their consequences with all the skill we
      possess, and all the efforts in our power.

      In giving to Congress information of the state of the
      Union, and recommending to their consideration such
      measures as appear to me to be necessary or expedient,
      according to my constitutional duty, the causes and the
      objects of the present extraordinary session will be
      explained.

      After the President of the United States received
      information that the French Government had expressed
      serious discontents at some proceedings of the Government
      of these States, said to affect the interests of France, he
      thought it expedient to send to that country a new
      Minister, fully instructed to enter on such amicable
      discussions and to give such candid explanations as might
      happily remove the discontents and suspicions of the French
      Government and vindicate the conduct of the United States.
      For this purpose he selected from among his fellow-citizens
      a character whose integrity, talents, experience, and
      services, had placed him in the rank of the most esteemed
      and respected in the nation. The direct object of this
      mission was expressed in his letter of credence to the
      French Republic, being "to maintain that good understanding
      which, from the commencement of the alliance, had subsisted
      between the two nations, and to efface unfavorable
      impressions; banish suspicions, and restore that cordiality
      which was at once the evidence and pledge of a friendly
      union;" and his instructions were to the same effect,
      "faithfully to represent the disposition of the Government
      and people of the United States (their disposition being
      one) to remove jealousies and obviate complaints, by
      showing that they were groundless; to restore that mutual
      confidence which had been so unfortunately and injuriously
      impaired, and to explain the relative interests of both
      countries and the real sentiments of his own."

      A Minister thus specially commissioned, it was expected,
      would have proved the instrument of restoring mutual
      confidence between the two Republics; the first step of the
      French Government corresponded with that expectation. A few
      days before his arrival at Paris, the French Minister of
      Foreign Relations informed the American Minister, then
      resident at Paris, of the formalities to be observed by
      himself in taking leave, and by his successor preparatory
      to his reception. These formalities they observed; and on
      the ninth of December presented officially to the Minister
      of Foreign Relations, the one a copy of his letters of
      recall, the other a copy of his letters of credence. These
      were laid before the Executive Directory: two days
      afterwards, the Minister of Foreign Relations informed the
      recalled American Minister that the Executive Directory had
      determined not to receive another Minister Plenipotentiary
      from the United States until after the redress of
      grievances demanded of the American Government, and which
      the French Republic had a right to expect from it. The
      American Minister immediately endeavored to ascertain
      whether, by refusing to receive him, it was intended that
      he should retire from the territories of the French
      Republic, and verbal answers were given that such was the
      intention of the Directory. For his own justification he
      desired a written answer; but obtained none until towards
      the last of January; when receiving notice in writing to
      quit the territories of the Republic, he proceeded to
      Amsterdam, where he proposed to wait for instruction from
      this Government. During his residence at Paris, cards of
      hospitality were refused him, and he was threatened with
      being subjected to the jurisdiction of the Minister of
      Police, but with becoming firmness he insisted on the
      protection of the law of nations, due to him as the known
      Minister of a foreign power. You will derive further
      information from his despatches, which will be laid before
      you.

      As it is often necessary that nations should treat, for the
      mutual advantage of their affairs, and especially to
      accommodate and terminate differences, and as they can
      treat only by Ministers, the right of embassy is well
      known, and established by the law and usage of nations; the
      refusal on the part of France to receive our Minister is
      then the denial of a right; but the refusal to hear him,
      until we have acceded to their demands, without discussion,
      and without investigation, is to treat us neither as
      allies, nor as friends, nor as a sovereign State.

      With this conduct of the French Government, it will be
      proper to take into view the public audience given to the
      late Minister of the United States, on his taking leave of
      the Executive Directory. The speech of the President[16]
      discloses sentiments more alarming than the refusal of a
      Minister; because more dangerous to our independence and
      union; and at the same time studiously marked with
      indignities towards the Government of the United States. It
      evinces a disposition to separate the people of the United
      States from the Government; to persuade them that they have
      different affections, principles, and interests, from those
      of their fellow-citizens, whom they themselves have chosen
      to manage their common concerns; and thus to produce
      divisions fatal to our peace. Such attempts ought to be
      repelled with a decision which shall convince France, and
      the world, that we are not a degraded people, humiliated
      under a colonial spirit of fear and sense of inferiority,
      fitted to be the miserable instruments of foreign
      influence; and regardless of national honor, character, and
      interest.

      I should have been happy to have thrown a veil over these
      transactions, if it had been possible to conceal them; but
      they have passed on the great theatre of the world, in the
      face of all Europe and America, and with such circumstances
      of publicity and solemnity that they cannot be disguised,
      and will not soon be forgotten; they have inflicted a wound
      in the American breast; it is my sincere desire, however,
      that it may be healed. It is my desire, and in this I
      presume I concur with you, and with our constituents, to
      preserve peace and friendship with all nations; and
      believing that neither the honor nor the interest of the
      United States absolutely forbid the repetition of advances
      for securing these desirable objects with France, I shall
      institute a fresh attempt at negotiation, and shall not
      fail to promote and accelerate an accommodation, on terms
      compatible with the rights, duties, interests, and honor of
      the nation. If we have committed errors, and these can be
      demonstrated, we shall be willing to correct them. If we
      have done injuries, we shall be willing, on conviction, to
      redress them; and equal measures of justice we have a right
      to expect from France and every other nation.

      The diplomatic intercourse between the United States and
      France being at present suspended, the Government has no
      means of obtaining official information from that country;
      nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the Executive
      Directory passed a decree, on the second of March last,
      contravening, in part, the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, of
      one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, injurious to
      our lawful commerce, and endangering the lives of our
      citizens. A copy of this decree will be laid before you.

      While we are endeavoring to adjust all our differences with
      France by amicable negotiation, the progress of the war in
      Europe, the depredations on our commerce, the personal
      injuries to our citizens, and general complexion of
      affairs, render it my indispensable duty to recommend to
      your consideration effectual measures of defence.

      The commerce of the United States has become an interesting
      object of attention, whether we consider it in relation to
      the wealth and finances, or the strength and resources of
      the nation. With a sea-coast of near two thousand miles in
      extent, opening a wide field for fisheries, navigation, and
      commerce, a great portion of our citizens naturally apply
      their industry and enterprise to these objects. Any serious
      and permanent injury to commerce, would not fail to produce
      the most embarrassing disorders; to prevent it from being
      undermined and destroyed, it is essential that it receive
      an adequate protection.

      The Naval Establishment must occur to every man who
      considers the injuries committed on our commerce, the
      insults offered to our citizens, and the description of
      vessels by which these abuses have been practised. As the
      sufferings of our mercantile and seafaring citizens cannot
      be ascribed to the omission of duties demandable,
      considering the neutral situation of our country, they are
      to be attributed to the hope of impunity, arising from a
      supposed inability on our part to afford protection. To
      resist the consequences of such impressions on the minds of
      foreign nations, and to guard against the degradation and
      servility which they must finally stamp on the American
      character, is an important duty of Government.

      A Naval power, next to the Militia, is the natural defence
      of the United States. The experience of the last war would
      be sufficient to show, that a moderate Naval force, such as
      would be easily within the present abilities of the Union,
      would have been sufficient to have baffled many formidable
      transportations of troops from one State to another, which
      were then practised. Our sea-coasts, from their great
      extent, are more easily annoyed and more easily defended by
      a Naval force than any other. With all the materials our
      country abounds; in skill, our naval architects and
      navigators are equal to any; and commanders and seamen will
      not be wanting.

      But although the establishment of a permanent system of
      Naval defence appears to be requisite, I am sensible it
      cannot be formed so speedily and extensively as the present
      crisis demands. Hitherto I have thought proper to prevent
      the sailing of armed vessels, except on voyages to the East
      Indies, where general usage, and the danger from pirates,
      appeared to render permission proper; yet the restriction
      has originated solely from a wish to prevent collusions
      with the powers at war, contravening the act of Congress of
      June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four, and not
      from any doubt entertained by me of the policy and
      propriety of permitting our vessels to employ means of
      defence, while engaged in a lawful foreign commerce. It
      remains for Congress to prescribe such regulations as will
      enable our seafaring citizens to defend themselves against
      violations of the law of nations; and, at the same time,
      restrain them from committing acts of hostility against the
      powers at war. In addition to this voluntary provision for
      defence by individual citizens, it appears to me necessary
      to equip the frigates, and provide other vessels of
      inferior force to take under convoy such merchant vessels
      as shall remain unarmed.

      The greater part of the cruisers whose depredations have
      been most injurious, have been built, and some of them
      partially equipped in the United States. Although an
      effectual remedy may be attended with difficulty, yet I
      have thought it my duty to present the subject generally
      to your consideration. If a mode can be devised by the
      wisdom of Congress to prevent the resources of the United
      States from being converted into the means of annoying our
      trade, a great evil will be prevented. With the same view I
      think it proper to mention that some of our citizens
      resident abroad have fitted out privateers, and others have
      voluntarily taken the command, or entered on board of them,
      and committed spoliations on the commerce of the United
      States. Such unnatural and iniquitous practices can be
      restrained only by severe punishments.

      But besides a protection of commerce on the seas, I think
      it highly necessary to protect it at home, where it is
      collected in our most important ports. The distance of the
      United States from Europe, and the well-known promptitude,
      ardor, and courage of the people, in defence of their
      country, happily diminish the probability of invasion:
      nevertheless, to guard against sudden and predatory
      incursions, the situation of some of our principal seaports
      demands your consideration; and as our country is
      vulnerable in other interests besides those of its
      commerce, you will seriously deliberate whether the means
      of general defence ought not to be increased by an addition
      to the regular artillery and cavalry, and by arrangements
      for forming a provisional army.

      With the same view, and as a measure, which even in a time
      of universal peace ought not to be neglected, I recommend
      to your consideration a revision of the laws for
      organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, to render
      that natural and safe defence of the country efficacious.
      Although it is very true, that we ought not to involve
      ourselves in the political system of Europe, but to keep
      ourselves always distinct and separate from it if we can,
      yet to effect this separation, early, punctual, and
      continual information of the current chain of events, and
      of the political projects in contemplation, is no less
      necessary than if we were directly concerned in them. It is
      necessary in order to the discovery of the efforts made to
      draw us into the vortex, in season to make preparations
      against them. However we may consider ourselves, the
      maritime and commercial powers of the world will consider
      the United States of America as forming a weight, in that
      balance of power in Europe, which can never be forgotten or
      neglected. It would not only be against our interest, but
      it would be doing wrong to one half of Europe, at least, if
      we should voluntarily throw ourselves into either scale. It
      is a natural policy for a nation that studies to be
      neutral, to consult with other nations engaged in the same
      studies and pursuits. At the same time that measures ought
      to be pursued with this view, our treaties with Prussia and
      Sweden, one of which is expired, and the other near
      expiring, might be renewed.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

      It is particularly your province to consider the state of
      the public finances; and to adopt such measures respecting
      them as exigencies shall be found to require. The
      preservation of public credit, the regular extinguishment
      of the public debt, and a provision of funds to defray any
      extraordinary expenses, will of course call for your
      serious attention. Although the imposition of new burdens
      cannot be in itself agreeable, yet there is no ground to
      doubt that the American people will expect from you such
      measures as their actual engagements, their present
      security, and future interests demand.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      The present situation of our country imposes an obligation
      on all the departments of Government to adopt an explicit
      and decided conduct. In my situation, an exposition of the
      principles by which my administration will be governed
      ought not to be omitted.

      It is impossible to conceal from ourselves or the world,
      what has been before observed, that endeavors have been
      employed to foster and establish a division between the
      Government and people of the United States. To investigate
      the causes which have encouraged this attempt is not
      necessary; but to repel by decided and united councils
      insinuations so derogatory to the honor, and aggressions so
      dangerous to the constitution, union, and even
      independence, of the nation, is an indispensable duty.

      It must not be permitted to be doubted, whether the people
      of the United States will support the Government
      established by their voluntary consent, and appointed by
      their free choice, or whether by surrendering themselves to
      the direction of foreign and domestic factions, in
      opposition to their own Government, they will forfeit the
      honorable station they have hitherto maintained.

      For myself, having never been indifferent to what concerned
      the interests of my country, devoted the best part of my
      life to obtain and support its independence, and constantly
      witnessed the patriotism, fidelity, and perseverance of my
      fellow-citizens, on the most trying occasions, it is not
      for me to hesitate or abandon a cause in which my heart has
      been so long engaged.

      Convinced that the conduct of the Government has been just
      and impartial to foreign nations; that those internal
      regulations, which have been established by law for the
      preservation of peace, are in their nature proper, and that
      they have been fairly executed; nothing will ever be done
      by me to impair the national engagements, to innovate upon
      principles, which have been so deliberately and uprightly
      established, or to surrender in any manner the rights of
      the Government. To enable me to maintain this declaration,
      I rely upon God with entire confidence, on the firm and
      enlightened support of the National Legislature, and upon
      the virtue and patriotism of my fellow-citizens.

                            JOHN ADAMS.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. TRACY, LAURANCE, and LIVERMORE 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, May 17.

RICHARD STOCKTON, from the State of New Jersey, attended.


THURSDAY, May 18.

HENRY TAZEWELL, from the State of Virginia, attended.


FRIDAY, May 19.

JOHN HENRY, from the State of Maryland, attended.


MONDAY, May 22.

JOHN BROWN, from the State of Kentucky, and JACOB READ, from the State
of South Carolina, severally attended.

JOHN RUTHERFORD, appointed a Senator from the State of New Jersey,
produced his credentials, which were read, and the oath required by law
being administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.


TUESDAY, May 23.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee of
the draft of an Address, in answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the session.

On the motion to expunge the following paragraph, to wit:

      "We are happy, since our sentiments on the subject are in
      perfect unison with yours, in this public manner to
      declare, that the conduct of the Government has been just
      and impartial to foreign nations, and that those internal
      regulations, which have been established for the
      preservation of peace, are, in their nature, proper, and
      have been fairly executed."

It was determined in the negative--yeas 11, nays 15, as follows:

      YEAS--Messrs. Bloodworth, Blount, Brown, Cocke, Henry,
      Hunter, Langdon, Martin, Mason, Tazewell, and Tattnall.

      NAYS--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Foster, Goodhue,
      Hillhouse, Howard, Laurance, Latimer, Livermore, Read,
      Rutherford, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tichenor, and Tracy.

And the report being further amended, was adopted, as follows:

      SIR: The Senate of the United States request you to accept
      their acknowledgments for the comprehensive and interesting
      detail you have given in your Speech to both Houses of
      Congress, on the existing state of the Union.

      While we regret the necessity of the present meeting of the
      Legislature, we wish to express our entire approbation of
      your conduct in convening it on this momentous occasion.

      The superintendence of our national faith, honor, and
      dignity, being, in a great measure, constitutionally
      deposited with the Executive, we observe, with singular
      satisfaction, the vigilance, firmness, and promptitude,
      exhibited by you, in this critical state of our public
      affairs, and from thence derive an evidence and pledge of
      the rectitude and integrity of your administration. And we
      are sensible it is an object of primary importance, that
      each branch of the Government should adopt a language and
      system of conduct which shall be cool, just, and
      dispassionate, but firm, explicit, and decided.

      We are equally desirous, with you, to preserve peace and
      friendship with all nations, and are happy to be informed,
      that neither the honor nor interests of the United States
      forbid advances for securing those desirable objects, by
      amicable negotiation with the French Republic. This method
      of adjusting national differences is not only the most
      mild, but the most rational and humane, and with
      governments disposed to be just, can seldom fail of
      success, when fairly, candidly, and sincerely used. If we
      have committed errors, and can be made sensible of them, we
      agree with you in opinion that we ought to correct them,
      and compensate the injuries which may have been consequent
      thereon; and we trust the French Republic will be actuated
      by the same just and benevolent principles of national
      policy.

      We do, therefore, most sincerely approve of your
      determination to promote and accelerate an accommodation of
      our existing differences with that Republic, by
      negotiation, on terms compatible with the rights, duties,
      interests, and honor of our nation. And you may rest
      assured of our most cordial co-operation, so far as it may
      become necessary, in this pursuit.

      Peace and harmony with all nations is our sincere wish;
      but, such being the lot of humanity, that nations will not
      always reciprocate peaceable dispositions, it is our firm
      belief, that effectual measures of defence will tend to
      inspire that national self-respect and confidence at
      _home_, which is the unfailing source of respectability
      _abroad_, to check aggression, and prevent war.

      While we are endeavoring to adjust our differences with the
      French Republic, by amicable negotiation, the progress of
      the war in Europe, the depredations on our commerce, the
      personal injuries to our citizens, and the general
      complexion of affairs, prove to us your vigilant care, in
      recommending to our attention effectual measures of
      defence.

      Those which you recommend, whether they relate to external
      defence, by permitting our citizens to arm for the purpose
      of repelling aggressions on their commercial rights, and by
      providing sea convoys, or to internal defence, by
      increasing the establishments of artillery and cavalry, by
      forming a provisional army, by revising the militia laws,
      and fortifying, more completely, our ports and harbors,
      will meet our consideration, under the influence of the
      same just regard for the security, interest, and honor of
      our country, which dictated your recommendation.

      Practices so unnatural and iniquitous, as those you state,
      of our own citizens, converting their property and personal
      exertions into the means of annoying our trade, and
      injuring their fellow-citizens, deserve legal severity
      commensurate with their turpitude.

      Although the Senate believe that the prosperity and
      happiness of our country does not depend on general and
      extensive political connections with European nations, yet
      we can never lose sight of the propriety as well as
      necessity of enabling the Executive, by sufficient and
      liberal supplies, to maintain, and even extend, our foreign
      intercourse, as exigencies may require, reposing full
      confidence in the Executive, in whom the constitution has
      placed the powers of negotiation.

      We learn, with sincere concern, that attempts are in
      operation to alienate the affections of our fellow-citizens
      from their Government. Attempts so wicked, wherever they
      exist, cannot fail to excite our utmost abhorrence. A
      Government chosen by the people for their own safety and
      happiness, and calculated to secure both, cannot lose their
      affections, so long as its administration pursues the
      principle upon which it was erected. And your resolution to
      observe a conduct just and impartial to all nations, a
      sacred regard to our national engagements, and not to
      impair, the rights of our Government, contains principles
      which cannot fail to secure to your administration the
      support of the National Legislature, to render abortive
      every attempt to excite dangerous jealousies among us, and
      to convince the world that our Government, and your
      administration of it, cannot be separated from the
      affectionate support of every good citizen. And the Senate
      cannot suffer the present occasion to pass, without thus
      publicly and solemnly expressing their attachment to the
      constitution and Government of their country; and as they
      hold themselves responsible to their constituents, their
      consciences, and their God, it is their determination, by
      all their exertions, to repel every attempt to alienate the
      affections of the people from the Government, so highly
      injurious to the honor, safety, and independence of the
      United States.

      We are happy, since our sentiments on the subject are in
      perfect unison with yours, in this public manner to
      declare, that we believe the conduct of the Government has
      been just and impartial to foreign nations, and that those
      internal regulations which have been established for the
      preservation of peace, are in their nature proper, and have
      been fairly executed.

      And we are equally happy in possessing an entire confidence
      in your abilities and exertions in your station to maintain
      untarnished the honor, preserve the peace, and support the
      independence of our country; to acquire and establish
      which, in connection with your fellow-citizens, has been
      the virtuous effort of a principal part of your life.

      To aid you in these arduous and honorable exertions, as it
      is our duty, so it shall be our faithful endeavor. And we
      flatter ourselves, sir, that the proceedings of the present
      session of Congress will manifest to the world, that,
      although the United States love peace, they will be
      independent. That they are sincere in their declarations to
      be just to the French, and all other nations, and expect
      the same in return.

      If a sense of justice, a love of moderation and peace,
      shall influence their councils, which we sincerely hope, we
      shall have just grounds to expect peace and amity between
      the United States and all nations will be preserved.

      But if we are so unfortunate as to experience injuries from
      any foreign power, and the ordinary methods by which
      differences are amicably adjusted between nations shall be
      rejected, the determination "not to surrender in any manner
      the rights of the Government" being so inseparably
      connected with the dignity, interest, and independence of
      our country, shall by us be steadily and inviolably
      supported.

                          THOMAS JEFFERSON,
                          _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. TRACY 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.

_Resolved_, That the Senate will, to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES accordingly.


WEDNESDAY, May 24.

ELIJAH PAINE, from the State of Vermont, attended.

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 made the following reply:

      _Mr. Vice President, and Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      It would be an affectation in me to dissemble the pleasure
      I feel on receiving this kind Address.

      My long experience of the wisdom, fortitude, and patriotism
      of the Senate of the United States, enhances in my
      estimation the value of those obliging expressions of your
      approbation of my conduct, which are a generous reward for
      the past, and an affecting encouragement to constancy and
      perseverance in future.

      Our sentiments appear to be so entirely in unison, that I
      cannot but believe them to be the rational result of the
      understandings and the natural feelings of the hearts of
      Americans in general, on contemplating the present state of
      the nation.

      While such principles and affections prevail, they will
      form an indissoluble bond of union, and a sure pledge that
      our country has no essential injury to apprehend from any
      portentous appearances abroad. In a humble reliance on
      Divine Providence, we may rest assured, that, while we
      reiterate with sincerity our endeavors to accommodate all
      our differences with France, the independence of our
      country cannot be diminished, its dignity degraded, or its
      glory tarnished, by any nation or combination of nations,
      whether friends or enemies.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and adjourned.


FRIDAY, May 26.

HUMPHREY MARSHALL, from the State of Kentucky, attended.


MONDAY, May 29.

JAMES ROSS, from the State of Pennsylvania, attended.


SATURDAY, June 24.

The following confidential Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives:_

      The Dey of Algiers has manifested a predilection for
      American built vessels, and, in consequence, has desired
      that two vessels might be constructed and equipped, as
      cruisers, according to the choice and taste of Captain
      O'Brien. The cost of two such vessels, built with live oak
      and cedar, and coppered, with guns and all other equipments
      complete, is estimated at forty-five thousand dollars. The
      expense of navigating them to Algiers may, perhaps, be
      compensated by the freight of the stores with which they
      may be loaded on account of our stipulations by treaty with
      the Dey.

      A compliance with the Dey's request appears to me to be of
      serious importance. He will repay the whole expense of
      building and equipping the two vessels; and as he has
      advanced the price of our peace with Tripoli, and become
      pledged for that of Tunis, the United States seem to be
      under peculiar obligations to provide this accommodation;
      and I trust that Congress will authorize the advance of
      money necessary for that purpose.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _June_ 23, 1797.

_Ordered_, That it lie for consideration.


SATURDAY, July 1.

JAMES GUNN, from the State of Georgia, attended.


WEDNESDAY, July 5.

The VICE PRESIDENT obtained leave of absence for the remainder of the
session.


THURSDAY, July 6.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the choice of a
President _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and the Hon.
WILLIAM BRADFORD was duly elected.


FRIDAY, July 7.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have passed a resolution, that the President of the Senate, and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, be authorized to close the
present session, by adjourning their respective Houses on Monday, the
10th day of this month; in which they desire the concurrence of the
Senate.


MONDAY, July 10.

_Ordered_, That Mr. TRACY and Mr. READ be a joint committee on the part
of the Senate, with such as the House of Representatives may appoint on
their part, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify
him that, unless he may have any further communications to make to the
two Houses of Congress, they are ready to adjourn.

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 notify him that, unless he may have
any further communications to make to the two Houses of Congress, they
are ready to adjourn.

Mr. TRACY reported from the joint committee, that they had waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to order, who replied, that he
had no further communication to make to Congress, except a respectful
and affectionate farewell.

The PRESIDENT then adjourned the Senate without day.




FIFTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

In pursuance of the authority given by the constitution, the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, on the 25th day of March last, caused to be issued
the Proclamation which follows:

      BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

      A PROCLAMATION.

      Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America
      provides that the President may, on extraordinary
      occasions, convene both Houses of Congress; and whereas an
      extraordinary occasion exists for convening Congress, and
      divers weighty matters claim their consideration, I have
      therefore thought it necessary to convene, and I do by
      these presents convene the Congress of the United States of
      America, at the City of Philadelphia, in the Commonwealth
      of Pennsylvania, on Monday the fifteenth day of May next,
      hereby requiring the Senators and Representatives in the
      Congress of the United States of America, and every of
      them, that, laying aside all other matters and cares, they
      then and there meet and assemble in Congress, in order to
      consult and determine on such measures as in their wisdom
      shall be deemed meet for the safety and welfare of the said
      United States.

      [Sidenote: [L. S.]]

      In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United
      States of America to be affixed to these presents, and
      signed the same with my hand. Done at the City of
      Philadelphia the twenty-fifth day of March, in the year of
      our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, and
      of the Independence of the United States of America the
      twenty-first.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      By the President: TIMOTHY PICKERING, _Secretary of State_.


MONDAY, May 15, 1797.

This being the day appointed by the Proclamation of the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, of the 25th of March last, for the meeting of Congress,
the following members of the House of Representatives appeared, produced
their credentials, and took their seats, to wit:

_From New Hampshire._--ABIEL FOSTER and JONATHAN FREEMAN.

_From Massachusetts._--THEOPHILUS BRADBURY, DWIGHT FOSTER, NATHANIEL
FREEMAN, Jr., SAMUEL LYMAN, HARRISON GRAY OTIS, JOHN READ, SAMUEL
SEWALL, WILLIAM SHEPARD, GEORGE THATCHER, JOSEPH BRADLEY VARNUM, and
PELEG WADSWORTH.

_From Rhode Island._--CHRISTOPHER G. CHAMPLIN and ELISHA R. POTTER.

_From Connecticut._--JOSHUA COIT, SAMUEL W. DANA, JAMES DAVENPORT,
CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, ROGER GRISWOLD, and NATHANIEL SMITH.

_From Vermont._--MATTHEW LYON.

_From New York._--DAVID BROOKS, JAMES COCHRAN, LUCAS ELMENDORPH, HENRY
GLENN, JONATHAN N. HAVENS, HEZEKIAH L. HOSMER, EDWARD LIVINGSTON, JOHN
E. VAN ALLEN, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, and JOHN WILLIAMS.

_From New Jersey._--JONATHAN DAYTON, JAMES H. IMLAY, and MARK THOMPSON.

_From Pennsylvania._--DAVID BARD, JOHN CHAPMAN, GEORGE EGE, ALBERT
GALLATIN, JOHN ANDRE HANNA, THOMAS HARTLEY, JOHN WILKES KITTERA, BLAIR
M'CLENACHAN, SAMUEL SITGREAVES, JOHN SWANWICK, and RICHARD THOMAS.

_From Maryland._--GEORGE BAER, Jr., WILLIAM CRAIK, JOHN DENNIS, GEORGE
DENT, WILLIAM HINDMAN, WILLIAM MATTHEWS, and RICHARD SPRIGG, Jr.

_From Virginia._--SAMUEL JORDAN CABELL, THOMAS CLAIBORNE, MATTHEW CLAY,
JOHN CLOPTON, JOHN DAWSON, THOMAS EVANS, WILLIAM B. GILES, CARTER B.
HARRISON, DAVID HOLMES, WALTER JONES, JAMES MACHIR, DANIEL MORGAN,
ANTHONY NEW, JOHN NICHOLAS, ABRAM TRIGG, and ABRAHAM VENABLE.

_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, NATHAN BRYAN, JAMES GILLESPIE,
WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, MATTHEW LOCKE, NATHANIEL MACON, RICHARD STANFORD,
and ROBERT WILLIAMS.

_From South Carolina._--ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, JOHN RUTLEDGE, Jr., and
WILLIAM SMITH, (of Charleston District.)

_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN and JOHN MILLEDGE.

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,

Mr. DAYTON was conducted to the chair, from whence he made his
acknowledgments to the House, as follows:

      "Accept, gentlemen, my acknowledgments for the very
      flattering mark of approbation and confidence exhibited in
      this second call to the chair, by a vote of this House.

      "Permit me, most earnestly, to request of you a continuance
      of that assistance and support, which were, upon all
      occasions, during the two preceding sessions, very
      liberally afforded to me; and, without which, all my
      exertions to maintain the order, and expedite the business
      of the House, must be, in a great degree, unsuccessful."


TUESDAY, May 16.

Several other members, to wit: from New Jersey, JAMES SCHUREMAN and
THOMAS SINNICKSON; from Virginia, JOHN TRIGG; and from South Carolina,
THOMAS SUMPTER, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified,
and took their seats in the House.

_President's Speech._

It being near twelve o'clock, the SPEAKER observed that it had been
usual on similar occasions to the present, to send a message to the
Senate, to inform them that the House is now ready to attend them in
receiving the communication of the PRESIDENT, agreeably to his
appointment: such a message was agreed to, and sent accordingly.

Soon after, the members of the Senate entered, and took the seats
assigned them; and a little after twelve, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES entered, and took the chair of the SPEAKER, (which he vacated on
the entrance of the Senate, the President and Clerk of the Senate being
placed on the right hand of the chair, and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the Clerk on the left.) After sitting a moment, he
rose and delivered the following Speech. [See Senate proceedings,
_ante_.]

Having concluded his Speech, after presenting a copy of it to the
President of the Senate, and another to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the President retired, as did also the members of the
Senate; and the Speaker having resumed his chair, he read the Speech:
after which, on motion, it was ordered to be committed to a Committee
of the Whole to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, May 17.

Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, WILLIAM GORDON and
JEREMIAH SMITH; from Pennsylvania, ANDREW GREGG; appeared, produced
their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

_The President's Speech._

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. DENT in the
chair, on the President's Speech. It was read by the Clerk.

Mr. CRAIK then moved a resolution, which, he observed, was merely a
matter of form, as there had been one to the same effect, on every
similar occasion. It was, "that it is the opinion of this committee,
that a respectful Address should be presented to the President in answer
to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, containing assurances, that
this House will take into consideration the various and important
matters recommended to their consideration." The committee agreed to the
resolution. They rose, and it immediately passed the House in the common
form.

On motion, it was _Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to prepare an
Answer to the Speech.

Mr. VENABLE, Mr. KITTERA, Mr. FREEMAN, Mr. RUTLEDGE, and Mr. GRISWOLD,
were nominated to report the Answer.


FRIDAY, May 19.

RICHARD BRENT, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.

_Documents Referred to in the President's Speech._

The SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a communication from
the Department of State, containing sundry documents referred to by the
President in his Speech to both Houses, numbered from 1 to 18. He
proceeded to read No. 1, viz:

1. A letter from General Pinckney to the Secretary of State, dated
Paris, December 20, 1796, giving an account of his arrival at Bordeaux;
of his journey from thence to Paris, in which, from the badness of the
roads, he broke three wheels of his carriage; of the ill treatment he
received from M. Delacroix, &c. He remarks, that it is not surprising
that the French Republic have refused to receive him, since they have
dismissed no less than thirteen foreign Ministers; and since they have
been led to believe by a late emigrant, that the United States was of no
greater consequence to them than the Republics of Genoa or Geneva. He
also mentions, that it seemed to be the opinion in France, that much
depended on the election of the President, as one of the candidates was
considered the friend of England, the other as devoted to France. The
people of France, he observes, have been greatly deceived, with respect
to the United States, by misrepresentation, being led to believe that
the people and Government have different views; but, adds he, any
attempt to divide the people from the Government, ought to be to the
people of the United States, the signal for rallying. Gen. Pinckney
several times mentions Mr. Monroe in this letter with great respect; and
says that before his arrival the Directory had been very cool towards
him, but, since that time, they had renewed their civilities to him.

2. Is a report of Major General Mountflorence to General Pinckney, dated
December 18, 1796, on the subject of American vessels brought prizes
into the ports of France.

3. Extract of a letter from Gen. Pinckney to the Secretary of State,
dated Paris, January 6, 1797, in which he mentions the distressed
situation of American citizens, arriving in the ports of France, who
were immediately thrown into prison, and could not be released, until an
order was got from the American Minister, countersigned by the French
Minister of Foreign Affairs; and no Minister being acknowledged there at
present, no relief could be afforded. He, however, applied to M.
Delacroix on their behalf, by means of the secretary, Major Rutledge,
and got them attended to through the Minister of General Police. General
Pinckney gives a further account of conversations which passed between
his secretary and M. Delacroix, on the subject of his quitting Paris, in
which he told him he must do so, or be liable to the operation of the
police laws; but refused to commit his orders to writing. He mentions
Barras's answer to Monroe's address as a curious production; but says it
was not particularly calculated as an answer to what was said by Mr.
Monroe, as he had it prepared, and was unacquainted with what would be
said by Mr. Monroe.

4. Extract of a letter from Gen. Pinckney to the Secretary of State,
dated Amsterdam, February 18, informing him, that, having had official
notice to quit the French Republic, he had gone to Amsterdam.

5. Extract of a letter from General Pinckney to the Secretary of State,
dated Amsterdam, March 5, in which he observes, that before he left
Paris, it was rumored that the Dutch were determined to treat American
vessels in the same manner as the French had done. He now believes that
the French wished them to do so, as he had lately received intelligence
that the Dutch had objected to do this, alleging that it would be a
great injury to them, as they should then lose their trade with this
country, and if so, they would be deprived of furnishing that support to
the French which they then gave them. France acquiesced because she saw
it was her interest; and having 25,000 troops in Batavia, it was
generally known that they could do what they pleased with that country.
The General adds, with detestation, that there are American citizens
who fit out privateers to cruise against the trade of this country.

6. Extract of a letter from Major General Mountflorence to General
Pinckney, dated Paris, February 14, mentioning the capture of a vessel
from Boston, and another from Baltimore, by an American citizen on board
a privateer: adding, that American citizens of this class are
continually wishing for more rigorous laws against American commerce.

7. Extract of a letter from the same to the same, dated Paris, February
21, giving an account of two more American vessels being brought into
L'Orient by the same man, and of another vessel taken by a French
privateer.

8. Extract of a letter from General Pinckney to the Secretary of State,
dated Amsterdam, March 8, mentioning the capture of several American
vessels; he also speaks of the disagreeableness of his situation; and
was of opinion that the new third of the French Councils would determine
whether this country and France were to remain at peace or go to war.
Though the former was desirable, he wished the measures of our
Government to be firm.

9. Speech of Barras, President of the French Directory, on Mr. Monroe's
recall.

10. The decree of the Executive Directory of March 2, relative to the
seizure of American vessels.

11. Extract of a letter from John Quincy Adams, Esq., Minister Resident
of the United States, near the Batavian Republic, to the Secretary of
State, dated at the Hague, November 4, 1796, giving an account of the
disposition of the people of that country towards this, which he states
to be friendly; and this he attributes to its being their interest to be
so. This country, he remarks, is the only quarter from which they
receive regular payments. He adds, however, that they have no will in
opposition to the French Government.

12. Extract of a letter from the Committee of Foreign Relations of the
Batavian Republic, to the above Minister, dated September 27, 1796,
making it appear very desirable that the United States should join them
in their common cause against Great Britain, reminding him of the many
services which they had rendered to this country.

13. Extract of a letter from John Quincy Adams in answer to the above,
wherein he says he shall not omit to forward their letter to this
country.

14. Extract of a letter from John Quincy Adams to the Secretary of
State, dated Hague, February 17, 1797, representing the French Republic
as paying as little attention to other neutral powers as to the United
States. He alludes to their conduct towards Hamburg, Bremen, Copenhagen,
&c.

15. Extract of a letter from Rufus King, Esq., to the Secretary of
State, dated London, March 12, 1797, to the same effect.

16. A letter from the Minister of Spain, resident in Philadelphia, to
the Secretary of State, dated May 6, 1797, complaining of the injurious
operation of the British Treaty against Spain, in three respects, viz:
as it destroys the doctrine of free ships making free goods; as it makes
certain articles contraband of war, which in former treaties were not
considered so; and as it gives to Great Britain a right to navigate the
Mississippi, which that Minister insists belonged not to us to give, as
it belonged wholly to Spain before it gave the right to the United
States, by the late treaty, to navigate that river. He concludes his
letter with saying, that the King of Spain is desirous of harmony
between the two countries, and relies upon the equity of his complaints
for satisfaction.

17. A letter from the Secretary of State to the Spanish Minister, in
answer to the above; in which he acknowledges that the treaty lately
concluded between the two countries had proved satisfactory to the
United States, as it put an end to a dispute which had existed for many
years respecting the navigation of the Mississippi, and also as it
afforded satisfaction to our mercantile citizens for the capture of our
ships and cargoes. All these, he allowed, were acts of substantial
justice; but all the other stipulations were wholly voluntary, and
perfectly reciprocal. With respect to the three articles of complaint
respecting the British Treaty, he justified the stipulations as being
just and consistent, and such as this country had a right to enter into.

18. A letter from General Pinckney to the Secretary of State, dated
Paris, February 1, stating that the day after the arrival of the news of
Buonaparte's successes in Italy, he received a letter from M. Delacroix,
directing him to leave Paris. General Pinckney concludes this letter
with observing, that the French seem to speak of this country as if it
were indebted to them for independence, and not to any exertions of our
own. Our treaty with Great Britain is execrated; they wish us to have no
connection with that country; they wish to destroy the trade of Great
Britain, and they look upon us as her best customer.

The whole of these documents having been read, on motion, they were
committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and
500 copies ordered to be printed.


MONDAY, May 22.

JAMES A. BAYARD, from Delaware, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.

_Answer to President's Speech._

On motion, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
DENT in the chair, on the Answer reported to the President's Speech,
which was read by the Clerk, as follows:

      The committee to whom it was referred to prepare an Answer
      to the Speech of the President of the United States,
      communicated to both Houses of Congress, on Tuesday, the
      16th May, 1797, report the following:

      _To the President of the United States_:

      SIR: The interesting detail of those events which have
      rendered the convention of Congress at this time
      indispensable, (communicated in your Speech to both
      Houses,) has excited in us the strongest emotions. Whilst
      we regret the occasion, we cannot omit to testify our
      approbation of the measure, and to pledge ourselves that no
      considerations of private inconvenience shall prevent, on
      our part, a faithful discharge of the duties to which we
      are called.

      We have constantly hoped that the nations of Europe, whilst
      desolated by foreign wars, or convulsed by intestine
      divisions, would have left the United States to enjoy that
      peace and tranquillity to which the impartial conduct of
      our Government has entitled us; and it is now with extreme
      regret we find the measures of the French Republic tending
      to endanger a situation so desirable and interesting to our
      country.

      Upon this occasion, we feel it our duty to express, in the
      most explicit manner, the sensations which the present
      crisis has excited, and to assure you of our zealous
      co-operation in those measures which may appear necessary
      for our security or peace.

      Although the first and most ardent wish of our hearts is
      that peace may be maintained with the French Republic and
      with all the world, yet we can never surrender those rights
      which belong to us as a nation; and whilst we view with
      satisfaction the wisdom, dignity, and moderation, which
      have marked the measures of the Supreme Executive of our
      country, in its attempts to remove, by candid explanations,
      the complaints and jealousies of France, we feel the full
      force of that indignity which has been offered our country
      in the rejection of its Minister. No attempts to wound our
      rights as a sovereign State will escape the notice of our
      constituents: they will be felt with indignation, and
      repelled with that decision which shall convince the world
      that we are not a degraded people; that we can never submit
      to the demands of a foreign power without examination, and
      without discussion.

      Knowing, as we do, the confidence reposed by the people of
      the United States in their Government, we cannot hesitate
      in expressing our indignation at the sentiments disclosed
      by the President of the Executive Directory of France, in
      his Speech to the Minister of the United States. Such
      sentiments serve to discover the imperfect knowledge which
      France possesses of the real opinions of our constituents.
      An attempt to separate the people of the United States from
      their Government, is an attempt to separate them from
      themselves; and although foreigners who know not the genius
      of our country may have conceived the project, and foreign
      emissaries may attempt the execution, yet the united
      efforts of our fellow-citizens will convince the world of
      its impracticability.

      Happy would it have been, if the transactions disclosed in
      your communication had never taken place, or that they
      could have been concealed. Sensibly, however, as we feel
      the wound which has been inflicted, we think with you, that
      neither the honor nor the interest of the United States
      forbid the repetition of advances for preserving peace; and
      we are happy to learn that fresh attempts at negotiation
      will be commenced; nor can we too strongly express our
      sincere desires that an accommodation may take place, on
      terms compatible with the rights, interest, and honor of
      our nation. Fully, however, impressed with the uncertainty
      of the result, we shall prepare to meet with fortitude any
      unfavorable events which may occur, and to extricate
      ourselves from the consequences, with all the skill we
      possess, and all the efforts in our power. Believing with
      you that the conduct of the Government has been just and
      impartial to foreign nations; that the laws for the
      preservation of peace have been proper, and that they have
      been fairly executed, the Representatives of the People do
      not hesitate to declare that they will give their most
      cordial support to the execution of principles so
      deliberately and uprightly established.

      The many interesting subjects which you have recommended to
      our consideration, and which are so strongly enforced by
      this momentous occasion, will receive every attention which
      their importance demands; and we trust, that by the decided
      and explicit conduct which will govern our deliberations,
      every insinuation will be repelled which is derogatory to
      the honor and independence of our country.

      Permit us, in offering this Address, to express our
      satisfaction at your promotion to the first office in the
      Government, and our entire confidence that the pre-eminent
      talents and patriotism which have placed you in this
      distinguished situation, will enable you to discharge its
      various duties with satisfaction to yourself, and advantage
      to our common country.

The Clerk having finished reading the Answer, the Chairman proceeded to
read it paragraph by paragraph. The three first paragraphs were read
without any thing being said upon them; but, upon the fourth being
read--

Mr. EVANS moved, that instead of "will be felt with _indignation_,"
should be inserted, "will be felt with _sensibility_," as a milder
phrase; as he wished to avoid using expressions more harsh than was
necessary.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, if his colleague would give him leave, he believed he
had an amendment to offer, which would be proper to be offered before
one he had moved, as he believed there was a rule in the House which
forbids the striking out a clause after it had been amended; and if the
amendment he should propose obtained, it might be necessary to strike
out a part of that paragraph. It was his intention to move a new
paragraph, to be inserted between the first and second. He believed it
would be in order to do so.

The Chairman wished the proposition to be read.

Mr. NICHOLAS asked if it was not always in order to insert a new
section.

The Chairman believed it was, provided it was not intended as a
substitute for another.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he should candidly avow it to be his intention to
insert several new sections. For the information of the committee, he
would, therefore, read the whole, though he meant at present, to move
only one.

The following are the propositions which Mr. N. read in his place; the
first of which was under consideration:

After the first section insert:

      "Although we are actuated by the utmost solicitude for the
      maintenance of peace with the French Republic, and with
      all the world, the rejection of our Minister and the manner
      of dismissing him from the territories of France, have
      excited our warmest sensibility; and, if followed by
      similar measures, and a refusal of all negotiation on the
      subject of our mutual complaints, will put an end to every
      friendly relation between the two countries; but we flatter
      ourselves that the Government of France only intended to
      suspend the ordinary diplomatic intercourse, and to bring
      into operation those extraordinary agencies which are in
      common use between nations, and which are confined in their
      intention to the great causes of difference. We therefore
      receive with the utmost satisfaction, your information that
      a fresh attempt at negotiation will be instituted; and we
      expect with confidence that a mutual spirit of
      conciliation, and a disposition on the part of the United
      States to place France on the footing of other countries,
      by removing the inequalities which may have arisen in the
      operation of our respective treaties with them will produce
      an accommodation compatible with the engagements rights,
      duties, and honor of the United States.

      "We will consider the several subjects which you have
      recommended to our consideration, with the attention which
      their importance demands, and will zealously co-operate in
      those measures which shall appear necessary for our own
      security or peace.

      "Whatever differences of opinion may have existed among the
      people of the United States, upon national subjects, we
      cannot believe that any serious expectation can be
      entertained of withdrawing the support of the people from
      their constitutional agents, and we should hope that the
      recollection of the miseries which she herself has suffered
      from a like interference, would prevent any such attempt by
      the Republic of France; but we explicitly declare for
      ourselves and our constituents that such an attempt would
      meet our highest indignation, and we will repel every
      unjust demand on the United States by foreign countries;
      that we will ever consider the humiliation of the
      Government as the greatest personal disgrace."

Mr. THATCHER observed, the gentleman from Virginia had read three or
four paragraphs, in the form of amendments. He presumed he did not mean
to add these, without striking out some part of the report. He wished
him to say what part he meant to strike out, that they might see how the
Answer would stand when amended in the way he proposed. If they stood
together, they would be inconsistent.

Mr. GILES presumed it was the object of the committee to bring into view
a comparison of ideas in some shape or other, and he thought the
amendment proposed was calculated to produce this effect. If he
understood the Answer as reported, it was predicated upon the principle
of approving all the measures which had been taken by the Executive with
respect to France, whilst the amendment avoided giving that approbation.
The simple question was, which of the two grounds the House would take?
He believed the best way of ascertaining this, would be to move to
insert, and if the amendments were carried, to recommit the report, to
be made conformable to them.

Mr. GALLATIN said, when an amendment was carried which affected other
parts of a composition, it was not usual to strike out, but to
recommit.

The Chairman having declared the motion to be in order,

Mr. NICHOLAS said, the present crisis was, in his mind, the most serious
and important which this country had known since the declaration of its
independence; and it would depend much, perhaps, upon the Answer which
they were about to return to the Speech of the President, whether we
were to witness a similar scene of havoc and distress to that which was
not yet forgotten; such as had been passed through upon an important
occasion, but such as could be entered upon only as a last resource. The
situation in which we stood with respect to France called for the most
judicious proceeding; it was his wish to heal the breach, which was
already too wide, by temperate, rather than widen it by irritating
measures. He hoped, on this occasion, they should get rid of that
irritation which injury naturally produced on the mind. He declared he
felt for the insult which had been offered to Mr. Pinckney; and he felt
more for him, from the dignity with which he had borne it, which had
proved him a proper character for the embassy. He was sorry that it
should have been thought necessary by the French Republic to refuse to
acknowledge him as the Minister of this country; but he did not think it
right to suffer this first impression to influence their proceedings
upon this business. If the insults offered were a sufficient cause for
war, let the subject be examined by itself, separate from all others;
but, if it be our wish to proceed with negotiation, he thought it wisest
and best to adopt a firm but moderate tone.

As he before observed, he felt for the situation of the gentleman
employed by this country; he thought it was a trying one, and did great
honor to himself, and he deserved the thanks of his country for the good
temper with which he had sustained it; but Mr. N. confessed the subject
did not strike him with all the force with which it seemed to have
impressed the mind of that respectable character. He did not consider
the insult offered to Government as going further than the ill-treatment
which our Minister had received. He believed that the circumstances,
which appeared in the papers laid before them, in some degree accounted
for the conduct of the French Government. It appears that at first the
Directory were willing to receive Mr. Pinckney, but when they saw his
credentials they refused to acknowledge him. This circumstance, he said,
seemed to give a character to the transaction which explained its
meaning.

It will be recollected, said Mr. N., that since the cause, or imagined
cause (let it be one or the other) of complaint against this country,
that there has been an intercourse between the two Governments on this
subject. It was to be expected that if there had been any intention in
Government to have come to an adjustment of the difference between the
two countries, our Minister would have been clothed with some power of
accommodation. Mr. N. supposed that when the French Directory agreed to
receive him, this was their opinion; but upon seeing his letters of
credence, they found no such power was given or intended. [He read the
object of his mission from the President's Speech, viz: "faithfully to
represent," &c.]

If these, he said, were all the objects expressed in his letters of
credence--and if there had been more, the President would doubtless have
informed them of it--the matter perfectly justified the character he had
given of it.

He made these observations, because he thought on an occasion like the
present, the truth should be made to appear, and though an insult had
been offered to this country, which could not fail to produce
irritation, yet that irritation should stop short of the point where it
would produce action, as he was certain any steps taken which might
hazard the peace of the country, would not conduce to the welfare of its
citizens.

There was a subject, he said, which seemed to have involved itself with
this, and of which he should take some notice, viz: a charge against
certain persons with being attached to the French cause. It might,
perhaps, be the opinion of some members of that House, more particularly
of strangers, that he was improperly influenced by party zeal in favor
of the French, a zeal which it had been blazoned forth existed to an
immoderate degree in this country. He had frequently heard insinuations
of this sort, which he considered so groundless as to be worthy only of
contempt; but when charges of this kind were made in the serious manner
in which they were now brought forward, it was necessary to call for
proof. Who, said he, is the man who has this proof? He knew of none. For
his own part, he had no intercourse with the French but of the commonest
kind. He wished those who possessed proofs of improper conduct of this
kind, would come forward and show them--show who are the traitors of
whom so much is said. He was not afraid of the impressions any such
charges brought against him, might make upon his constituents, or where
he was known; indeed, he had not the arrogance to believe the charge was
levelled against him, though he believed he was frequently charged with
a too great attachment to the French cause.

When he first came into that House, he found the French embroiled with
all their neighbors, who were endeavoring to tear them to pieces. He
knew what had been the situation of this country when engaged in a
similar cause, and was anxious for their success. Was there not cause
for anxiety, when a nation, contending for the right of self-government,
was thus attacked? Especially when it was well known, that if the powers
engaged against France had proved successful, this country would have
been their next object. Had they not, he asked, the strongest proofs
(even the declarations of one of their Governors) that it was the
intention of England to declare war against America, in case of the
successful termination of the war against France? It redounded to the
honor of the citizens of this country, he said, that they had never
shown a disposition to embark in the present European war.

The difference, Mr. N. said, between the Address reported, and the
proposition he had brought forward was this: the former approved all the
measures of the Executive, and the latter recommended an inquiry
relative to the operation of the British Treaty. It was this question
upon which the committee would decide, and it was of importance, he
said, that they should weigh the causes of difference between us and the
French Republic, and not decide that we are right, without examination,
because, if, after being brought to hostility, we are obliged to
retract, it would show our former folly and wantonness.

Mr. N. said he would inquire into the rights of France as they respected
three principal subjects, which were more particularly causes of
complaint between the two countries. These were, the right of our
vessels carrying English goods, the article respecting contraband goods,
and that respecting the carrying of provisions. He knew no better way to
determine how far we could support those articles of the British Treaty,
than by extracting the arguments of our own ministerial characters in
support of these measures. With respect to the question of free ships
making free goods, his impressions were very different from those of the
Secretary of State. He says, with respect to the regulation of free
ships making free goods, it is not changing a right under the law of
nations; that it had never been pretended to be a right, and that our
having agreed to it in one instance, and not in another, was no just
cause of complaint by the French Government. He advocates this
transaction in his letter to Mr. Adet last winter. Mr. N. said, he knew
not what was the origin of the law of nations upon the subject; he knew
not how it came into existence; it had never been settled by any
convention of nations. Perhaps, however, the point now under
consideration came as near to a fixed principle, as any other of what
are called the laws of nations ever did, as only one nation in Europe
could be excepted from the general understanding of it. Mr. Pickering,
he thought, seemed not to have given full force to this circumstance,
but seemed to have weakened the evidence. [He referred to what Mr.
Pickering had said upon the subject.] It was Mr. Pickering's idea, that
the stipulation of free ships making free goods, was a mere temporary
provision; that it was not an article in the law of nations, but a new
principle introduced by the contracting parties. In order to prove this
was not the case, Mr. N. referred to the provisions entered into by the
armed neutrality of the north of Europe; to a treaty between France and
Spain; to a note from the Court of Denmark; and to the declaration of
the United States themselves on the subject.

With respect to contraband articles, he had little to say. It was
asserted that the articles stipulated in the British Treaty as
contraband, were made so by the law of nations. Where the doctrine was
found he could not say. It had been quoted from _Vattel_; this authority
might be correct; but he never found any two writers on this subject
agree as to this article. In a late publication on the law of nations
(_Marten's_) he found it directly asserted that naval stores were not
contraband. But he said, if the contrary were the law of nations, they
were bound to extend the same privilege to France which they gave to
England: they could not have one rule for the one nation, and a
different one for the other.

The 18th article of the British Treaty, respecting the carrying of
provisions, always struck him as a very important one. It had heretofore
been contended that this article did not go to any provisions except
such as were carrying to besieged or blockaded places; but he believed
the British had constantly made it a pretence for seizing provisions
going to France. Indeed, if he was not mistaken, the British Minister
had publicly declared in the House of Commons, that the provisions on
board the vessels intended for the Quiberoon expedition had been
supplied from what had been captured in American vessels.

Mr. N. contended that this was the opinion of the Executive of this
country, as published in all the public papers, and of course known to
the Government of France. In the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Pinckney
in 1793, he declares that there is only one case in which provisions are
contraband, and shows the necessity of a neutral nation observing the
same rules towards all the powers at war. But, in the present case, the
right was ceded during the present war.

It was an unfortunate circumstance against the neutrality of this
country, to find a doctrine so differently applied at different times.
It was a strong proof of the progress of the passions. It might be
considered as a fraudulent thing, in one instance, to give up a right
for a compensation to ourselves.

Mr. N. concluded with observing that he had gone over the subject, he
feared, not without being considered tedious by the committee; but he
felt himself greatly interested in the present decision. He believed any
additional irritation in their measures would place peace out of our
reach. He believed, therefore, it was their business to avoid it. He
believed it would be for the honor and happiness of the country to do
so.

Mr. W. SMITH said, as the gentleman last up had taken a wide range of
argument, he must excuse him if he confined himself, in his reply, to
those parts of his observations only which appeared to him essentially
to relate to the subject under consideration.

He believed the question was, whether they should alter the report in
the manner proposed; that is, whether they should strike out words
which expressed the sensibility of this House at the unprovoked insults
offered by the French Republic to our Government and country, or adopt
the gentleman's amendment, which he read.

If they agreed to this amendment, they must necessarily expect from the
French Republic fresh insult and aggression; for it seemed to admit that
hitherto no insult had been intended.

The amendment might be divided, Mr. S. said, into two parts. The first
went to vindicate the French from any intentional insults towards this
country: it even held out an idea that the Executive ought to offer some
concessions to France, and even designated the kind of concession. He
should, therefore, without taking notice of what the gentleman had said
about the political parties of this country, or what he had said
respecting himself personally, confine his observations to the points in
question.

The first point was, whether the conduct of France was justifiable in
rejecting our Minister, and sending him from the Republic in the manner
they had done?

He thought the committee had abundant materials before them completely
to refute the first proposition; and he was surprised, knowing that
these documents were in the hands of every member, that the gentleman
from Virginia could expect to impress their minds with the idea that no
indignity whatever had been offered by the French Government to this
country in that transaction.

Mr. S. said, that it appeared most clearly that the French Directory
intended to treat this Government with marked indignity; for though the
gentleman from Virginia suggested an opinion that their refusal to
receive Mr. Pinckney was owing altogether to his not being invested with
extraordinary powers, this was evidently not the case, as the Directory
had been well informed as to the character in which Mr. Pinckney came,
before they received his letters of credence, as appears by the letter
of M. Delacroix to Mr. Monroe, styling Mr. Pinckney his successor, and
by other documents communicated by the President, (which he read.) There
was no doubt, then, with respect to the Directory being well acquainted
with the character in which Mr. Pinckney went to France, viz: as
Minister Plenipotentiary or ordinary Minister; but, after keeping him in
suspense near two months, on the day after the news arrived of
Bonaparte's successes in Italy, he was ordered, by a peremptory mandate,
in writing, to leave the French Republic. This mandate was accompanied
by a circumstance which was certainly intended to convey an insult; it
was addressed to him as an Anglo-American, a term, it is true, they
sometimes used to distinguish the inhabitants of the United States from
those of the West India Islands, but, in his opinion, here evidently
designed as a term of reproach, as he believed no other similar
instance could be mentioned. Upon this circumstance, however, he laid no
stress; the other indignities which our Minister had received were too
great to require any weight to be given to this circumstance.

The gentleman from Virginia had confined the complaints of the French
Government to three articles of the British Treaty; though, if the
committee referred to the letter of Mr. Delacroix, it would be found
that they did not confine them within so narrow a compass. They
complain, first, of the inexecution of treaties; there are several
points of complaint relative to that head. 2d. Complaints against the
decrees of our Federal Courts. 3d. Against the law of June, 1794; and,
4th. Against the Treaty with Great Britain. Yet the gentleman confines
himself altogether to the latter. And really he did not expect at this
time of day, after the subject had been fully discussed, and determined,
and the objections refuted over and over again, that any gentleman would
have endeavored to revive and prove their complaints on this head well
founded. The three articles were: 1st, that free ships did not make free
goods; 2d, the contraband article; and 3d, the provision article.

1. The stipulation with respect to neutral vessels not making neutral
goods in the British Treaty, was not contrary to the law of nations; it
only provided that the law of nations was to be carried into effect in
the manner most convenient for the United States. But this doctrine, he
said, was no new thing. It had been acknowledged most explicitly by Mr.
Jefferson, Secretary of State, in July, 1793, and was so declared to the
Minister of France; yet no objection was made to it until the British
Treaty was ratified, though long previous thereto French property was
captured on board our vessels. Mr. Jefferson, writing on this subject to
the French Minister, said: "You have no shadow of complaint;" the thing
was so perfectly clear and well understood by the law of nations. This
happened as long ago as July or August, 1793. But two years afterwards,
when the British Treaty was promulgated, the whole country was thrown
into a flame by admitting this very same doctrine. France herself had
always acted under this law of nations, when not restrained by treaty:
in _Valin's_ Ordinances of France this clearly appears. The armed
neutrality was confined to the then existing war; Russia herself, the
creator of the armed neutrality, entered into a compact with England, in
1793, expressly contravening its principles. The principle was then not
established by our Treaty with England; but such being the acknowledged
law of nations, it was merely stipulated that it should be exercised in
the manner least injurious to us.

2. The next article of complaint was with respect to contraband goods.
If gentlemen will consult the law of nations, they will find that the
articles mentioned in the British Treaty are by the law of nations
contraband articles. They will find that in all the treaties with
Denmark and Sweden, Great Britain had made the same stipulation. Indeed,
the gentleman had acknowledged that it was so stated by some writers on
the law of nations; but he wished to derogate from the authority of
those writers, in the same way as Mr. Genet, in his correspondence with
Mr. Jefferson, had called them "worm-eaten folios and musty aphorisms;"
to _Vattel_ might be added _Valin's_ Ordinances, a very respectable work
in France. How, then, can the gentleman with truth say that we have
deviated from the law of nations?

3. The last point which the gentleman took notice of was the provision
article. There was no doubt that this Government would never allow
provisions to be deemed contraband, except when going to a besieged or
blockaded port. Though he made this declaration, yet it was but candid
to acknowledge that this was stated by _Vattel_ to be the law of
nations. [He read an extract from _Vattel_.]

When this was stated by Lord Grenville to Mr. Pinckney, our then
Minister in London, Mr. Pinckney acknowledged it to be so stated in
_Vattel_, but very ingeniously argued that France could not be
considered as in the situation mentioned in _Vattel_, since provisions
were cheaper there than they were in England, and therefore the case did
not apply. When our Envoy was sent to London, both parties were
tenacious on this ground. Our Minister was unwilling to agree to this
construction of the law of nations; but the British Minister insisted
upon it, and if there had not been some compromise, the negotiation must
have been broken off, and a war probably ensued. The result was,
therefore, that, without admitting it to be the law of nations, it was
agreed that where provisions were contraband by the law of nations, they
should be paid for, but not confiscated, as the law of nations
(admitting that construction) would have authorized. Therefore some
advantage was secured to France, for if Great Britain had confiscated
our vessels going to France with provisions, it would certainly have
damped the ardor of our citizens employed in that commerce; but under
this regulation our merchants were certain of being paid for their
cargoes, whether they arrived in France or were carried into England.
These were the three grounds of objection which the gentleman from
Virginia had stated as grounds of complaint by the French against the
British Treaty.

Before he went further, he would observe that, admitting (which he did
not admit) that there had been solid grounds of objection against the
British Treaty, before it was ratified, yet they ought now to be closed.
It had received a full discussion at the time; it had been carried into
effect, was become the law of the land, and was generally approved of by
the country. Why, then, endeavor to stir up the feelings of the public
against it by alleging it to be just cause of complaint? If the
committee wanted any proof of the approbation which that instrument had
received, he thought it might be gathered from the general approbation
which had been given of the administration of the late President on his
retirement from office, in doing which the people had doubtless taken
into view the whole of his conduct. Nor did he think the people had
shown any hostility to the Treaty in their late election of members to
that House. Indeed, he believed that the approbation which the Treaty
received increased in proportion as the subject came to be understood.

Admitting further, that the Treaty had changed the existing state of
things between Great Britain and France, by having granted commercial
favors to Great Britain; by the 2d article of our treaty with France,
the same favors would immediately attach to France, so that she could
have no reason to complain on that ground. Indeed France had herself new
modified the treaty between that country and this, and had taken to
herself what she deemed to be the favors granted to Great Britain. [Mr.
S. read the decree on this subject of 2d March last.]

Mr. S. said, he believed he had examined all the observations of the
gentleman from Virginia, relative to the Treaty, which were essential to
the subject under consideration. He did not wish to go much farther on
the present occasion, because he agreed with him, that it was proper
they should keep themselves as cool and calm as the nature of the case
would admit; but he thought whilst so much deference was paid to the
feelings of France, some respect ought to be paid to the feelings of
America. He hoped the people of America would retain a proper respect
and consideration for their national character; and however earnestly he
wished that the differences subsisting between the two countries might
be amicably settled, yet, he trusted that our national dignity would
never be at so low an ebb as to submit to the insults and indignities of
any nation whatever. In saying this, he expressed his hearty wish to
keep the door of negotiation with France unclosed; but at the same time
he strongly recommended to take every necessary step to place us in a
situation to defend ourselves, provided she should still persist in her
haughty demeanor.

Mr. S. said, as he knew indecent and harsh language always recoiled upon
those who used it, he did not wish to adopt it; but, at the same time,
it was due to ourselves to express our feelings with a proper degree of
strength and spirit. He was not in the habit of quoting any thing from
M. Genet, but there was one expression of his which he thought contained
good advice, "all this accommodation and humility, all this
condescension attains no end."

After the gentleman from Virginia had dwelt sufficiently upon the danger
of irritating the French, he had emphatically called upon us to
recollect our "weakness." It might have been as well if he had left that
to have been discovered from another quarter. He hoped we had
sufficient confidence in the means of defence which we possessed, if
driven to the last resort; and he believed if there was any one more
certain way of provoking war than another, it was that of proclaiming
our own weakness.

He hoped such a language would now be spoken as would make known to the
French Government that the Government and people of this country were
one, and that they would repel any attempt to gain an influence over our
Councils and Government. The gentleman had said that there did not
appear to be any design of this kind, and had endeavored to do away what
was stated as the opinion in France, in General Pinckney's letter. He
did not mean to rest this altogether upon the reports of an emigrant,
whom General Pinckney mentions as having represented this country
divided, and of no greater consequence than Genoa or Geneva, but he took
the whole information into view. [He read the extract relative to this
subject.]

It was evident, Mr. S. said, from this information from France, that an
opinion had been industriously circulated there that the Government and
people of this country were divided; that the Executive was corrupt and
did not pursue the interests of the people; and that they might, by
perseverance, overturn the Administration, and introduce a new order of
things. Was not such an opinion of things, he asked, calculated to
induce France to believe that she might make her own terms with us? It
was well known what the French wished, and it was time to declare it
plainly. His opinion was that they designed to ruin the commerce of
Great Britain through us. This was evident. They talk of the British
Treaty; but they suffered it to lie dormant for near twelve months,
without complaining about it. Why were they silent till within a few
weeks before the election of our President? Why did they commit
spoliations upon our commerce long before the British Treaty was ever
dreamt of? Their first decree, directing spoliations of our property,
and the capture of our provision ships, was on the 9th of May, 1793, a
month before the provision order of Great Britain, which was dated June
8, 1793; and why have they, from that time to this, been committing
spoliations on our commerce? The British Treaty was published in Paris
in August, 1795; a year after, in July, 1796, they determine to treat us
in the same way that we suffer other nations to treat us, and this
decree was not made known to our Government till the October following,
a few weeks before the election of President.

But this was not all; the French had pursued similar measures towards
all the other neutral powers. Sweden, in consequence, had no Minister in
their country, and was on the eve of a rupture. The intention of the
French evidently was, to compel all the neutral powers to destroy the
commerce of Great Britain; but he trusted this country had more spirit
than to suffer herself to be thus forced to give up her commerce with
Great Britain; he trusted they would spurn any such idea.

Mr. S. hoped the observations which he had made would not be construed
into a wish to see the United States and France involved in a war. He
had no objection to such measures being taken for preserving peace
between the two countries as should be consistent with national honor.
It was a delicate thing for them to suggest what the Executive ought to
do. It was out of their province to direct him. The Executive had
various considerations to take into view. We had injuries to complain of
against France, for the spoliations committed upon our commerce. If the
Executive conceive we have a right to redress, that subject will of
course constitute a part of our Envoy's instructions. Would it then be
proper, said he, for this House to interfere with the Executive, to
obtrude its opinion and say, "You must give up this point; we take upon
us (without any authority by the constitution) to give _carte blanche_
to France, without any indemnification or redress."

The gentleman says it is the object of the amendment on the table to
recommend to the Executive to remove any inequalities in the treaties;
that was alone sufficient to vote it out.

There had been no period since the Revolution which had so powerfully
called on Americans for that fortitude and wisdom which they knew so
well how to display in great and solemn emergencies. It was not his
intention to offend any one by stating the question in such strong
terms; but he was persuaded that when the present situation of our
affairs with respect to France was well understood, it would be found
that to acquiesce in her present demands was virtually and essentially
to surrender our self-government and independence.


TUESDAY, May 23.

Two other members, to wit: from North Carolina, JOSEPH MCDOWELL, and
from Virginia, JOSIAH PARKER, appeared, produced their credentials, were
qualified, and took their seats.

_Answer to the Presidents Speech._

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. DENT in the
chair, on the amendment of Mr. NICHOLAS to the report of the select
committee, in answer to the President's Speech.

Mr. FREEMAN first rose. He observed, that in his observations on the
subject before the committee, amid the conflicting opinions of gentlemen
whom he respected, he did not mean to express his own either with
confidence or with zeal. Though one of the committee that had reported
the Address, he could not approve it _in toto_. He had two principal
objections to it. First, to that part which went to an unequivocal
approbation of all the measures of the Executive respecting our foreign
relations; and, secondly, to that part which contained expressions of
resentment and indignation towards France. In framing an answer to the
President, he conceived the committee should have refrained from
expressing an unqualified approbation of all the measures of the
Executive. To omit it would not imply censure. By introducing it, it
forced all those who entertain even doubts of the propriety of any one
Executive measure to vote against the Address.

The principal causes of the irritation on the part of France, insisted
upon in the Answer, were the rejection of our Minister, and the
sentiments contained in the Speech of the President of the Directory to
our late Minister. If gentlemen would look into the documents laid
before the House by the President, he was confident they would find the
true reason for the refusal to receive our Minister. He came only as an
ordinary Minister, without any power to propose such modifications as
might lead to an accommodation, and when the Directory discovered this
from his credentials they refused him. In answer to this, it had been
urged that M. Delacroix, Minister of Foreign Affairs, from the first,
well knew that Mr. Pinckney was only the successor to Mr. Monroe, and
that his coming in that quality was not the reason why the French
refused to receive him. Mr. F. referred to the documents which had been
laid before the House on this subject, from which it appeared that the
secretary of M. Delacroix had suggested a reason for the apparent change
of opinion on the subject of receiving Mr. Pinckney. Suppose, the
secretary observed, that M. Delacroix had made a mistake at first in the
intentions of the Directory, was that mistake to be binding on the
Directory?

He did not wish to be understood to consider the conduct of the French
as perfectly justifiable; but he could not conceive that it was such as
to justify, on our part, irritating or violent measures. As to the
Speech of the President of the Directory, he could not say much on it,
he did not perfectly understand it. As far as he did, he considered it a
childish gasconade, not to be imitated, and below resentment. [He read
part of it]. It was certainly arrogant in him to say that we owed our
liberty to their exertions. But if the French could derive any
satisfaction from such vain boasting he had no objection to their
enjoying it. There was another part of the Speech that had been
considered as much more obnoxious. It was said to breathe a design to
separate the people here from their Government. The part alluded to was
no more than an expression of affection for the people; he could see
nothing in this irritating or insulting; it was a mode of expression
which they used as to themselves, and by which they wished to convey
their affection for the whole nation. The term people, certainly
included the Government, and could not with propriety, therefore, be
said to separate the people from it.

An idea had been thrown out by the gentleman from South Carolina, that
the people generally approved of the British Treaty; he inferred it from
the fate of the late elections. For his part he could see no great
alteration to have been produced by the late elections; and if there had
been it would not have been an evidence to his mind that the people
approved of the British Treaty. He believed, for his part, that the
opinions of a great majority of the people had been uniformly averse to
it; and those who advocated it were by this time nearly sick of it. It
was true a spirit was aroused by the cry of war at the time the subject
of appropriation was pending, that produced petitions, not approving
however of the stipulations of the treaty, but asking that it might be
carried into effect since it had reached so late a stage.

Another engine, he observed, had been wielded with singular dexterity.
Much had been effected by the use, or rather abuse, of the terms
federalist and anti-federalist, federalism and anti-federalism. When the
Federal Constitution was submitted to the people, to approve it, and
endeavor to procure its ratification, it was federalism. Afterwards,
when the Government was organized and in operation, to approve every
measure of the Executive and support every proposition from the
Secretary of the Treasury, was federalism; and those who entertained
even doubts of their propriety, though they had been instrumental in
procuring the adoption of the constitution, were called
anti-federalists. In 1794 to be opposed to Madison's propositions, the
resolution for the sequestration of the British debts, and the
resolution prohibiting all intercourse with Great Britain, was
federalism. In 1796 it was federalism to advocate the British Treaty;
and now he presumed that it would be federalism to support the report of
the committee and hightoned measures with respect to France. In 1793 he
acknowledged that federalism assumed a very different attitude from what
it had on the present occasion; it was then the attitude of meekness, of
humanity, and supplication. The men who exclusively styled themselves
federalists, could only deplore with unavailing sighs the impotence of
their country, and throw it upon the benevolence and magnanimity of the
British Monarch. Their perturbed imaginations could even then see our
cities sacked and burnt, and our citizens slaughtered. On the frontier
they heard the war-hoop, and the groans of helpless women and children,
the tortured victims of savage vengeance. Now we are at once risen from
youth to manhood, and are ready to meet the haughty Republic of France
animated with enthusiasm and flushed with victory. Mr. F. observed, that
he rejoiced however that gentlemen adopted a bolder language on this
than had been used on the former occasion. He felt his full shame in the
national degradation of that moment. He was in favor of firm language;
but he would distinguish between the language of manly firmness and
that of childish petulance or ridiculous bombast.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, if he understood the state of the business, the
question was, whether the committee would agree to the amendment
proposed by the gentleman from Virginia? If it contained sentiments
accordant to the feelings of the committee, it would of course be
adopted; if not, it would doubtless be rejected.

He supposed it would form an objection to this amendment, if it were
found to be inconsistent with the other parts of the report. He believed
this to be the case; but he would not make objections to it on this
ground. He would examine the paragraph itself, and see whether it
contained sentiments in unison with those of the committee. He believed
this would not be found to be the case, and that when the committee had
taken a view of it, it would be rejected.

If he understood the proposition, it contained three distinct
principles, viz:

1. To make a new apology for the conduct of the French Government
towards this country.

2. That the House of Representatives shall interfere with and dictate to
the Executive in respect to what concessions ought to be made to the
French Republic.

3. It depends upon the spirit of conciliation on the part of France for
an adjustment of the differences existing between the two Governments.

The apology, he said, was a new one, and one which the French had not
thought of making for themselves; for they tell us, as it appears from
Mr. Pinckney's letter to the Secretary of State, "they will not
acknowledge or receive another Minister Plenipotentiary from the United
States, until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the
American Government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect
from it." We say (or rather the gentleman from Virginia says in his
amendment) they rejected our Minister because he had not power enough;
therefore, for the apology now made for the French Government they were
indebted to the ingenuity of the mover.

Now, said Mr. G., I do not wish that the House of Representatives should
undertake to make apologies for the conduct of the French Government
towards this. It was true they needed apology; but he did not think it
was proper for us to make it for them. Further, as this apology was not
made by themselves, but wholly different from their own assertions, it
was not likely that they would fall into it. They say, "Permit us to
sell our privateers in your ports; annul treaties and repeal laws, and
then we will tell you on what terms we will receive Mr. Pinckney, and
peace from you." After this declaration, he did not think it would be
proper to attempt any new apology for them. He therefore supposed, that
so far as this proposition offered a new apology for the French
Republic, it could not meet with the approbation of the committee.

The next proposition contained in the amendment was, that the House of
Representatives should interfere with the Executive power of this
country, and dictate to it what sort of steps should be taken towards
reconciling the French Government. He asked whether this was consonant
to the principles of the constitution? Whether the constitution had not
delegated the power of making treaties to other branches of the
Government? He believed it had, and that therefore we had no right to
dictate to the Executive what should or what should not be done with
respect to present disputes with the French Government. On this ground,
therefore, he considered it as improper.

In the next place, the amendment contained another proposition, viz:
that we rely upon a spirit of conciliation on the part of France for an
accommodation of differences. And, said Mr. G., do we really rely upon
this? Have we such evidence as should incline us to rely upon it? Have
the French Government expressed any inclination to settle the
differences subsisting between them and us? The communications which
were received from the Supreme Executive, do not bear this complexion.
The communication from the French Minister to this Executive does not
wear it. Our proclamations are called _insidious_; our Minister is
insulted and rejected; and attempts are made to divide the people of
this country from their Government. Is this conciliation? Does it not
rather appear as if they intended to alienate the affections of the
people from their Government, in order to effect their own views? He was
convinced it did, and that they could not rely upon a spirit of
conciliation in them. For his own part, he did not rely upon it; he
relied upon this country being able to convince the world that we are
not a divided people; that we will not willingly abandon our Government.
When the French shall be convinced of this, they will not treat us with
indignity. Therefore, he trusted, as the proposed amendment did not
contain such sentiments as were likely to accord with the feelings of
the committee, that it would be rejected.

Mr. GILES said the subject under discussion was a very important one. It
appeared to him, from various documents, that all the steps taken by the
Executive had a view to an eventual appeal to arms, which it was his
wish (as it was the wish of many in that House) to avoid. It was proper,
therefore, that the clashing opinions should be discussed. If the
proposition brought forward for this purpose was not sufficiently simple
and explicit, he wished it might be made more so. For he believed the
question to be, whether the committee be prepared to pass a vote,
approving of the whole course of the conduct of the Executive, or
whether France should be put upon the same ground with the other
belligerent powers. That she is at present upon the same footing, no
gentleman had attempted to show. Gentlemen who wish to get rid of this
ground, say this is a thing which should be left to the Executive. He
thought it was, however, a proper subject for their discussion; for
whatever power the Executive had with respect to making of treaties,
that House had the means of checking that power. Suppose, said Mr. G., I
were on this occasion called upon to tax my land, was it not necessary I
should inquire into the subject, and endeavor to avoid a measure which
would probably prove a serious drain upon the blood and treasure of the
country? He was unwilling to have his land taxed for the purpose of
supporting a war on this principle. It was evident that the French took
one ground in this dispute, and the United States another, and whilst
this continued to be the case, no negotiation would have any effect.
Indeed, said he, it is war; and if the measure proposed was taken, we
make war if we do not declare it.

Mr. BALDWIN said, he had taken the liberty to express his concern
several years ago, that this custom of answering the PRESIDENT's Speech,
which was but a mere piece of public ceremony, should call up and demand
expressions of opinion on all the important business of the session,
while the members were yet standing with their hats in their hands, in
the attitude of receiving the communications, and had not yet read or
opened the papers which were the ground of their being called together.
It applied very strongly in this instance, as this was a new Congress,
and a greater proportion than common of new members; he thought it an
unfavorable attitude in which to be hurried into the very midst of
things, and to anticipate business of such vast importance to the
country, before they had time to attend to the information which had
been submitted to them. He trusted some fit occasion would before long
be found to disencumber themselves of a ceremony, new in this country,
which tended only to evil and to increasing embarrassments. He observed
that it was under the influence of these impressions, he had made it a
rule to himself, for many sessions, to vote for those amendments and
those propositions in the Address which were most delphic and ambiguous,
and while they were respectful to the PRESIDENT, left the House
unpledged and open to take up the business of the session as it
presented itself in its ordinary course. It was on this ground he should
vote for the amendment now under consideration.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, when the report of the committee should be before
them, he should have some remarks to make upon it; but at present he
should offer only a few observations upon the proposed amendment.

He said he had strong objections to the amendment; but one so strong
that he need not urge any other: it was, that in agreeing to it they
should dictate to the Executive, which he believed would be infringing
upon the Executive power. As it was his peculiar duty to give
instructions to Ministers, it would be improper in them to say what
should be the instructions given to a Minister; but if it were not so,
he should not vote for those of the gentleman from Virginia.

In the instructions of a Minister, it was usual to comprise a variety of
propositions. Certain things were first to be proposed; if these could
not be obtained, he was instructed to come forward with something else,
and if this could not be got, he went on to his ultimatum. But, if the
proposition of the gentleman from Virginia were to obtain, his
instructions would be publicly known. In vain would it be for him to
offer this or that, they will say the House of Representatives has
directed you what to do, and we will not agree to any thing else. This
would be contrary to all diplomatic proceedings; for that reason he
should be opposed to the House saying what should be his instructions.
Indeed, if it were usual, he should be against it in this instance, as
he believed it would encourage an extravagant demand. What, said he,
have they said to our Minister--or rather to the person who was formerly
our Minister, but who then had no power? They told him to go away; they
had nothing to say to him: they would receive no more Ministers from the
United States until their grievances were redressed. This country is
charged with countenancing an inequality of treaties. The French have
said, redress our grievances in a certain way. But, said Mr. R., if we
do this, we shall put ourselves under the dominion of a foreign power,
and shall have to ask a foreign country what we shall do. This was a
situation into which we must not fall without a struggle.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, though he had wished to have taken a little more
time before he had troubled the committee with his observations; yet, as
there now appeared an interval, he should take the opportunity of
occupying it for a few minutes.

He should not answer the observations of the gentleman from Georgia,
with respect to the style of the Answer reported; but he believed that
those gentlemen who would look at it without a perverted vision, would
not discover the faults in it which that gentleman had discovered. He
thought it rather remarkable for the simplicity of its style than for a
redundancy of epithet. He discovered more of the latter in the amendment
than in the original report. It was true that the superlative was used
in different places, but he thought it was used where it ought to be. He
would not, however, detain the committee with matter so immaterial, but
would proceed to what appeared to him of some consequence.

A stranger who had come into the House during this debate, and heard
what had fallen from the mover of the proposed amendment, and from
members who had followed him, would have supposed, that instead of an
act of ordinary course being under discussion, they had been debating
the question of a declaration of war against France.

He would declare, for himself at least, on the subject of war, that he
agreed in certain of the sentiments of gentlemen on the other side of
the House. A state of war was certainly a curse to any nation; to
America it would be peculiarly a curse. It ought to be avoided by all
possible means. It was not only impolitic, but madness, to run into war.
But he thought there were two sides of the subject. He thought that
peace was the greatest of all possible blessings; but he also thought
that peace might be purchased too dearly, and war avoided at too great
an expense. He thought peace might cost a greater value than money--our
independence. This was no new sentiment in this country. It was thought
that peace might be bought too dearly in the Revolutionary war; they
then thought it better to be at war than to submit to the alternative
evils. France also shows that she prefers a state of war--a war carried
on at an unexampled expense of blood and treasure--to a state of peace
with despotism. He thought, therefore, that we should hold a language of
a firm and manly tone. To preserve peace by all honorable means, but not
by dishonorable means. As he observed last session, on a similar
occasion, we should cultivate peace with zeal and sincerity; but
whenever our intention of doing so was publicly expressed, it ought to
be accompanied with an opposite assertion of a determination, if our
endeavors to maintain peace fail, that then every resource of the nation
shall be called into existence in support of all that is dear to us.
Such a declaration, at this time, was extremely proper. At present, he
said, all the observations which had been made relative to war, were
very premature. They might be brought into consideration, when any
measure should be discussed which might lead to a war with France. Then
would be the time to count the cost and the benefit. At present, he
conceived, our only object was, to inquire what were the feelings which
the conduct of France had created in our minds, and whether we were
prepared to express those feelings.

Shall we, said he, from a fear of irritating the French Republic, in a
communication with our own Executive, suppress our feelings, or what is
worse, suppress the truth? For his own part, he saw nothing in the
present business but an expression of feelings naturally excited by the
occasion; nothing but a declaration of facts. This being the case, the
question was, whether, from fear of irritating the French Government,
they should suppress these feelings.

It would be well to consider what would be the consequence of this
condescension. He did not think they were warranted in believing that
they should put France in a better humor with us by this means. He was
sure that gentlemen who were in the last Congress would recollect that
the Answer to the Address was reported in very mild terms, from a spirit
of accommodation in the committee who formed it, and that it was
afterwards pruned in the House with care, yet there had been no
amelioration of the disposition of the French towards this country.
Instead of inducing them to behave better to us, had it not been with a
knowledge of this that they have offered us fresh insult and indignity?
Indeed, Mr. Pinckney suggests an idea that this moderation of ours may
have been one of the operating causes of sending our Minister from their
country. Besides, gentlemen have not pointed out the particular
expressions which they consider as irritating in the report. For his own
part, he thought the amendment might be considered as more irritating
than the draft of the committee. What was the language of the amendment?
[He read it.] He gave it as his opinion, that there was more of war and
bullying in it than in the original report. It was true the threat it
contained was accompanied by an _if_. Now, all the difference between
the draft and the amendment was, that in the former, instead of using
the _if_, they had at once expressed indignation at the insults offered
to this country by the French Republic, and given assurances to the
Executive that they would repel indignity with indignation.

But, said he, let us, on this occasion, confine ourselves to the real
question now before us. We have been informed, said he, by the
PRESIDENT, in his Speech to both Houses, of the conduct of the French
towards this Government, and have since received the documents upon
which this report was founded. He had not yet heard any gentleman
justify the conduct of the French. He had heard, indeed, some attempts
to palliate or apologize for it, but none to vindicate it. His ideas of
these things were, that the French had not only injured us, but added
insult to injury; and while he retained this belief, he could not help
feeling indignation and resentment. The question before the House was
not, Will we resent it? Our actions, better than our words, show our
desires for peace. It was a desire in which we were too much interested,
to be doubted; yet it was proper that this desire should be accompanied
with expressions of our feelings on the occasion. What objections could
there be to this? If we were sunk so low, if our fears of the French
Republic are so great, that we dare not express what we feel, our
situation was become really deplorable. He hoped this was not, nor ever
would be the case. He hoped we should cultivate peace with sincerity,
but with firmness. For if the French Republic is so terrible to us, that
we must crouch and sink before her; if we hold our rights at her nod,
let gentlemen say so. And if we are to give up ourselves to her, let it
be an act of the Government; do not let us conceal under the appearance
of spirit, actual submission. Nations, it was true, might be brought
into such a situation as to be obliged to surrender some of their rights
to other nations; but when this is done, it should be done with some
degree of character. Let it not be done as a confession of guilt. Let
us, said he, however, surrender any thing, sooner than the fair fame of
our country. He was not a military man, nor did he know how he should
act upon such an occasion; but he knew what we ought to do. We ought,
rather than submit to such indignity, to die in the last ditch. Why
insinuate that the Government had been wrong? was it not enough to
submit to injury; shall we not only receive the stripes, but kiss the
rod that inflicts them?

Mr. OTIS observed, that he was so little accustomed to the mode of
conducting a debate in that honorable House, that he hardly knew in what
manner to apply his remarks to the subject before the committee. A
specific motion had been laid on the table by the gentleman from
Virginia, which reduced the true question before them to a narrow
compass; but the mover, in discussing his own proposition, had enlarged
upon subjects dear to his mind, and familiar to his recollection. In
this circuit he had been ably followed by the gentleman from South
Carolina, and others; so that the whole subject of the Address to the
PRESIDENT, and the reply of the committee, was brought into view, with
many considerations that did not belong to it. It was his design to have
remained silent until the subject had been exhausted by other gentlemen,
and if any remark of an important nature had been omitted, which was not
likely to have been the case, he would have suggested such ideas as
might have presented themselves to his mind; but a motion having been
made for the committee to rise, he would then offer a few observations,
not so much for the sake of illustrating the question, which had been
done most successfully, but in order to declare his sentiments upon this
important occasion. He so far agreed with the gentleman from Georgia,
that he believed, upon ordinary occasions, an Answer to the PRESIDENT's
Address should be calculated to preserve an harmonious intercourse
between the different departments of Government, rather than to pledge
either branch of the Legislature, collaterally, upon subjects that would
come regularly under their consideration. But the present was not an
ordinary occasion, and the situation of the country required that the
Answer should not be a spiritless expression of civility, but a new
edition of the Declaration of Independence. He expressed his regret that
upon this question gentlemen should have wandered into a review of
measures and subjects, so frequently examined, so deliberately settled,
and which had a tendency to rekindle party animosity. If they would
never acquiesce in the deliberate acts of the Government, because their
personal sentiments had been adverse to them in the season of their
discussion, there could be no end to controversy. For his part he
conceived that all party distinctions ought now to cease; and that the
House was now called by a warning voice, to destroy the idea of a
geographical division of sentiment and interest existing among the
people. His constituents and himself were disposed to regard the
inhabitants of the Southern States as brothers, whose features were cast
in the same mould, and who had waded through the same troubled waters to
the shore of liberty and independence. He hoped that gentlemen would, in
their turn, think the other part of the Union entitled to some
consideration.

The Address of the PRESIDENT disclosed, for the contemplation of the
committee, a narrative of facts, and of the existing causes of
controversy between the French Republic and ourselves; the overtures for
reconciliation, which were to be repeated by attempts to negotiate, and
the measures of defence that might be proper, in case negotiation should
fail. The injuries sustained by us were of a high and atrocious nature,
consisting in the capture of our vessels, depredations upon the property
and persons of our citizens, the indignity offered to our Minister; but
what was more aggravating than the rest, was, the professed
determination not to receive our Minister until the complaints of the
French should be redressed, without explanation and without
exception--until we should violate treaties, repeal laws, and do what
the constitution would not authorize, vacate solemn judgments of our
courts of law. These injuries should not be concealed. He did not wish,
however, to indulge in unnecessary expressions of indignation, but to
state in plain and unequivocal terms the remonstrances of injured
friendship. If any man doubted of the pernicious effects of the measures
of the French nation, and of the actual state of our commerce, let him
inquire of the ruined and unfortunate merchant, harassed with
persecutions on account of the revenue, which he so long and patiently
toiled to support. If any doubted of its effects upon agriculture, let
him inquire of the farmer whose produce is falling and will be exposed
to perish in his barns. Where, said he, are your sailors? Listen to the
passing gale of the ocean, and you will hear their groans issuing from
French prison-ships. Such were the injuries, and such the requisitions
of the French nation; and he defied the ingenuity of any gentleman to
draw a comparison between the Directory and the British Parliament, in
favor of the former; and insisted that the demands of Charles Delacroix
were upon a parallel with those of Lord North. He enlarged upon the
analogy of the circumstances attending the pretensions of the British
Government to bind us, when we were colonies, and of the French to
subjugate us, now we are free and independent States. He thought it
expedient to cultivate the same spirit of union, and to use the same
firm and decided language. He regretted that questions should be
agitated upon this occasion, which had been formerly the cause of party
spirit and dissensions; and did not believe that the immortal men who
framed the noted instrument which dissolved the charm of allegiance and
shivered the fetters of tyranny, condescended to differ about verbal
criticisms and nice expressions, through fear of giving offence; nor
that it was incumbent upon the members of the committee to repress the
assertion of their rights, or smother a just and dignified expression of
their susceptibility of insult, because the French had been once our
friends, or because the commencement of their revolution was a struggle
for liberty. There was a time when he was animated with enthusiasm in
favor of the French Revolution, and he cherished it, while civil liberty
appeared to be the object; but he now considered that Revolution as
completely achieved, and that the war was continued, not for liberty,
but for conquest and aggrandizement, to which he did not believe it the
interest of this country to contribute.


WEDNESDAY, May 24.

WILLIAM SMITH, from Pinckney district, South Carolina; SAMUEL SMITH,
from Maryland; JOHN ALLEN, from Connecticut; and WILLIAM FINDLAY, from
Pennsylvania, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and
took their seats.

_Answer to President's Speech._

The House again went into Committee of the Whole on the Answer to the
PRESIDENT's Speech, and Mr. NICHOLAS' amendment being under
consideration,

Mr. SWANWICK opened the debate. He lamented the loss of time which was
generally experienced at the opening of every session in debating the
Answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT, when, perhaps, business of the
first moment called for immediate attention. It was much to be wished
that committees appointed for this purpose would confine themselves to
the instructions which were given to them on the occasion, which were in
general terms, viz: "to prepare a respectful Address, assuring the
PRESIDENT that the House will take into their serious consideration the
various important matters recommended to their attention." If Answers
were drawn in general terms, conformably to these instructions, he
thought very many of the embarrassments which they now experienced would
be avoided, and every member would be left at liberty to pursue such
measures as appeared to them right, when they came before him in the
ordinary course of business unclogged by any creed which he might have
been called to assent to before he had an opportunity of considering the
subjects it contained. It also often occasioned much warmth in debate,
and served to divide the House into two parties on the very threshold of
their business. This could not possibly have any good effect, but the
contrary; he should therefore be happy to see the practice simplified or
abolished altogether.

The effect at present has been, that no sooner had the committee
appointed to draft an Address made a report, than the gentleman from
Virginia proposed a substitute, which, according to his idea, was more
proper. A warm debate had taken place, and he believed that either might
be adopted without effect, as they were merely a form of words leading
to no conclusion. Suppose a majority of _one_ was obtained on the
report, what end would be produced? None; for it might be that the very
persons who voted on this general question, might vote against
particular subjects when they came under consideration; as every one
would recollect the difficulties which had been experienced in getting
three frigates built, and this difficulty, he doubted not, would again
occur. Since, however, these two forms of an Answer were before them,
and they were called upon to say which they would adopt, it might be
proper to go into some consideration of the subject.

The difference between the two productions seemed to be, that the one
reported seemed to express great indignity on account of the injuries
received from the French Republic, and a determination to repel them;
that produced by the gentleman from Virginia was of a more conciliatory
tone, recommending to the PRESIDENT to begin his negotiations with
placing the French Republic on the same ground with the other
belligerent powers; so that the difference was simply as it respected a
few words.

What were the arguments in favor of the warm tone? They were told it
would have a great effect on the French Republic, because if a spirited
Answer were given to the PRESIDENT's communication, signifying (as his
colleague Mr. SITGREAVES had strongly expressed it) that we were
determined to _die in the last ditch_, it would strike them with terror.
If he thought this effect could be really produced, it might be some
inducement for him to agree to it.

Mr. S. remarked, that they were told by Mr. Pinckney, in his letter to
the Secretary of State, that it was probable that two events had
contributed to his dismissal from the French Republic, viz: one, the
victories of Bonaparte in Italy, the other, the Addresses of the Senate
and House of Representatives in answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT at
the last session. With respect to the Answers alluded to, no opinion
could be formed from this assertion, because, though that of the House
of Representatives was tolerably moderate, yet that of the Senate was as
warm as any thing could be produced. He read extracts from both, and
compared them with each other, giving the credit which, in his opinion,
was due to the most moderate.

The first and most necessary step to be taken was, to put all the
belligerent powers upon the same footing, which could not be an offence
to any. But it was said that to recommend this measure to the Executive,
was to dictate to him; that it was carrying humility on the front of the
Minister who should be employed. What! said Mr. S., would it be to carry
humility in his front to say, "I come to place you on the same footing
with the most favored nation?" It certainly could not; since it was the
language of right reason, of justice.

As to dictating to the Executive, could it be called dictating when we
merely express our opinion and advice to him, on points which he has
himself laid before us; and, in order to deliberate on which we were
thus unusually called together? Very low and debasing, indeed, must be
the situation of this House, if they were to be muzzled and prevented
from laying their sentiments before the Chief Magistrate of the Union!
When treaties are made, we are told they are laws over which we have no
power. If we dare not speak on the subject before they are made, is this
House reduced merely to the odious task of laying taxes, without being
allowed to exercise its sense on any other public measures connected
with them? Why does the PRESIDENT communicate these things to us, if we
are not allowed to express any sentiments about them? Why do the people
elect their representatives all over this widely extended empire, if,
when they are convened, they are not allowed the privilege of expressing
their opinions on the dearest interests of their constituents? But it is
stated that this will create division among the branches of the
Government, who ought always to act and think alike. Were this the case,
there was no use to divide the Government, as our constitution does,
into three branches; they might all have been left in one, and then no
accident of this kind would have happened; but the fact is, this very
division of the branches was devised in order that they might operate as
checks on each other. The people thought it better that a division of
this kind should prevent acting at all, than that we should act hastily
and unadvisedly. Thus when a law, after mature deliberation, passes this
House as wise and good, the Senate were not obliged on this account to
see it in the same light; they judge for themselves, and, if they see
cause, reject it, and no complaint takes place on our part because they
do so. In another Government, indeed that of England, all the branches
have been contrived into the most perfect union, Kings, Lords, and
Commons, all agree, but has the Government been the better for this?
Happy had it been for that nation, had this not been the case. Many an
unwise measure they have gone into, might then, fortunately for the
nation, have been totally prevented.

But it has been said we ought to express the highest indignation at the
conduct of France. Let us examine for a moment on what this is founded.
Three grounds have been mentioned; the dismission of our Minister, the
spoliations on our ships, and the interference with our Government, in
attempting to divide the people from it. As to the first, the dismission
of our Minister, said Mr. S., nobody can feel more sensibly than I do,
this indignity; but it only leads me to regret, as I have often already
expressed my regrets, at our sending so many diplomatic gentlemen to
Europe. Wretched will be our case, if we are embroiled whenever these
gentlemen shall be refused, or uncivilly treated. All history is full of
instances of wars, founded on such points of etiquette as these, and
they admonish us against employing embassies, as much as possible, to
avoid these dangers from our foreign connections. But it seems, the
Directory, by Mr. Pinckney's letter, at the same time sent away thirteen
other foreign Ministers; yet we do not hear that these nations went to
war on this account. One of them was Sweden, a very powerful maritime
nation, possessed of a considerable fleet; her Minister was dismissed;
she contented herself with sending away the French Minister also, and
here the dispute ended. But, surely allowance ought also to be made for
the present revolutionary state of France. If all things do not proceed
there with the order they ought, it is perhaps because of their present
warlike and revolutionary position, which cannot but mend every day, and
should induce us to make some allowance for them.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said that, having listened to the gentlemen who had
preceded him with the most respectful attention, and heard their ardent
expressions of patriotism and the lively sense which they entertained of
the true dignity of our Government, he should not attempt to follow them
into a field which had been exhausted, but would leave it to the
consideration of the committee and his country to determine upon his
sentiments and the measures which he should suggest whether he was not
equally disposed with others to promote the peace and honor, the
happiness and security of his country and Government; he would leave it
for his measures to speak for him; he would not be led away by any idle
or extraneous vanity from objects so solemn and important; he should
speak freely as became an American at a crisis so very pressing. First,
then, he should notice the Address that was before the committee, and
the amendment which had been proposed to be made to it; he was sorry to
observe the manner in which they had been discussed. It had been
considered, on one side, that to adopt any language in reply to the
Address but that which has been laid before the committee in the report,
would amount to a surrender of all our rights, privileges, and
independence, as a nation, to France; on the other, it has been held
that the differences between us and France are distorted, and that we
should at least not shut up every avenue to negotiation by an obstinate
and blind assertion of our own infallibility. If he believed with those
of the former opinion, that we should in any shape incur the stigma of
degrading ourselves, or if he suspected even that we should sacrifice
one right of our country or Government by an adoption of the amendment
proposed, or he thought we should not endanger our national character
and safety by the adoption of the report, he should most certainly
reject the amendment and adopt the report; or if he believed, with the
gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. OTIS,) that the demands of France now
were any wise analogous to those of Great Britain on a former occasion,
sooner than consent to a dereliction of independence and national
character he would not stop short of the language of that report; but as
he could not force his judgment to so outrageous a misconstruction, as
he saw on the contrary numerous reasons to entertain a very different
opinion, he would not consent to incur the perils and the errors in
which that report would involve us; he could not consent to so hasty, so
precipitate, and inconsiderate a step.

The question properly before the House at this time is, whether we shall
continue to express so perfect a reliance on all the acts of our own
Government; whether we shall say obstinately to France that there is no
possible case in which our judgment could have been misled or mistaken
in our conduct towards her; and, by determining to adhere to our former
conduct, preclude every possibility to an amicable adjustment; or leave
a reasonable opportunity open for an effectual discussion and adjustment
of differences, wherever they may subsist.

The scope of the Speech of the PRESIDENT to both Houses, it must be
confessed, goes to bind us to the former conduct; and it is too evident
that the report, in strict coincidence with the sentiments of several,
but not all its supporters, bears that same dangerous tendency. From
which line of conduct are we to expect the most beneficent issue, to
treat with a complaining power by a determination to show that its
complaints are groundless, or by examining the complaints and the
evidence in amicable negotiation and deciding afterwards? Let us examine
the complaints of France, and then determine whether they are all so
frivolous as to excite irritation at the mere mention of them; unless we
are so convinced, unless we are thoroughly satisfied that they are so,
we cannot vote the Answer as it is reported. Should we discover in such
an examination that some of our measures have been founded at least in
mistake, would it then be proper to adopt the language of the Address?
But should we persist under such a possibility of mistake, what do we
risk? an evil much more fatal than the worst that could follow the most
sober resolution which we can now adopt; we risk the alternative of
abandoning it after a war in which we may be sufferers, and after we may
have retarded the increasing prosperity of our country half an age. We
have an example before us in a nation that was eager to snatch at a
remote pretext for an assumed interference in her Government; we have
seen that nation, among the most powerful and haughty in Europe, the
most vain of her dignity, (real or unreal,) the most apt to interfere in
the government of others; we have seen her enter into a war, and we have
seen her driven to the lowest state of humiliation; we have seen her
obliged to pursue the most abject means of solicitation to obtain a
peace from that very nation whom she had irritated to a war; and we saw
her more humiliated still, by the rejection of those propositions which
she had made to obtain peace. Have we a better prospect than that
nation? Are our means equal to hers? Are we, indeed, ready to embark in
a war--with France, too--and present such a lesson to the world as
America at war with France, after France has defeated the efforts of all
the world? He again asked, have we the means? Let gentlemen who are
willing to plunge us into that dilemma make the reply; but let not
gentlemen indulge in so hateful a picture. But, although we have no
means, he was still against surrendering the honor of our country;
fortunately, no such sacrifice is demanded, no such measure is
necessary; and were we ten times more destitute even than we are, he
should never submit to our national degradation, were there a power so
insolent as to expect it.

It was, he knew, a very ungracious, and often an unpopular task, to
display the errors of our own Government; there was a national vanity, a
vain and unmeaning pride, which sought to be bolstered up by frippery of
words and acts of dissimulation. He knew that this empty and pernicious
vanity often assumed the post and place of the true dignity of a
country, and blinked contumely on him that was disposed to prefer the
plain, frank, open path of integrity and truth. He would choose between
these opposite passions of a nation, and preferring his duty to
unmerited reproach, he would neither repress the sentiments of his mind,
nor foster those which he conceived to be pregnant with ruin; he would
glory more in promoting the justice of his country than in conducting
her to the most brilliant triumphs in an unjust cause; he would,
therefore, calmly examine whether France had just cause of complaint;
and whether she had or not a just cause, he would assert that France
might, without exciting indignation, think herself injured; that she
might, was a sufficient reason with him for preferring the amendment, as
it left an opening for rather amicable discussion and accommodation,
rather than the report which had the opposite character.


THURSDAY, May 25.

Mr. GILES rose.--He said that he had always been against this form of
giving Answers, since the time the practice first began; it was derived
from the British House of Commons, which was a bad source for
precedents. In that House, however, the Speech and the Answer were both
known to be the work of the Minister, and treated with great freedom.
Mr. G. thought that it would be better to direct the Committee of Rules
and Orders of the House, to make one standing Answer, which would serve
regularly for all Speeches. This would be an improper time for such a
regulation, but though we could not now get rid of a bad habit, it was
not necessary to vindicate it. He said, that Mr. LIVINGSTON had
yesterday taken part of the ground which he intended to take. The
question before the House amounted to this: shall we recommend it to the
PRESIDENT to place all nations on a level as to commerce, and to remove
the inequalities between them? To assist him in deciding this point, he
would refer to facts and dates; and, as he did not wish to represent
things in false colors, he would be glad to be corrected, if he should
happen to go wrong. He would begin at the 1st of February, 1793, when
England dismissed the French Minister, and the Republic, in consequence,
declared war against her. On the 22d of April following, the PRESIDENT
declared this country to be in a state of neutrality, and warned the
citizens to observe it. At this time, about the 10th May, M. Genet
landed and raised a considerable alarm by commencing an improper
correspondence with our citizens. Government from that time took a wrong
impression, and acted under the idea of a dangerous French influence in
this country. All this was a mistake. Genet was universally reprobated,
unless by a few disorderly people, and Government from that trial should
have learned to trust us. In consequence of the disturbance that Genet
made, many societies entered into resolutions to support government.
Even the pulpit reviled Genet. If execration, disappointment, and
contempt, could fill up the measure of punishment, he had it. From the
arrival of Genet to that of Fauchet, some sentiments were kept alive,
and some phrases that he would review. The _Friends of Order_ and the
_Disorganizers_ were two of them. Then we had the reign of _moderation_,
but of so frantic a kind, for the short time which it lasted, as to
exercise the greatest of despotism over opinion. This _order_,
_moderation_, and _disorganization_, were all gone and no more said
about them. Among Mr. G.'s constituents, when notice came of the Western
insurrection, they were all ready to march in support of Government;
instead of calling themselves the friends of order, they proved that
they were so. The country remained from this time in a tranquil state
till the arrival of Mr. Jay's Treaty. On the 5th of December, 1793, a
Message was received from the PRESIDENT, speaking of France in the most
friendly terms. In spite of Genet's quarrel there was no
misunderstanding with the Republic, and Mr. G. quoted this circumstance
to prove that there was no serious difference till the arrival of Mr.
Jay's Treaty. Mr. G. said that he would review what was in the mean time
passing in Europe. During the summer of 1793, Britain made no less than
six treaties with different nations, and one stipulation in each of them
was that the contracting parties should stop all provisions going to
France, and force all other nations to do so. The first of these
treaties was made with Russia, on the 20th of March, 1793: the second
was with Spain; the third with Prussia; the fourth with the Emperor; the
fifth with Portugal; and the last with the King of the two Sicilies. It
was said that France preceded Britain in the order for stopping
provisions; Britain did not publicly issue such orders until the 16th of
June, 1793; but Britain had, in reality, adopted the practice long
before. The French orders fluctuated; but, at one time, the United
States were exempted from stoppage, when others were stopped. He then
noticed the stoppage of provisions to the West Indies; the Orders of the
6th of November, 1793, and the 8th of January, 1794. In the very short
interval between these two dates, France had gone on so fast that
Britain found it better to ameliorate the condition of neutral States.
During this time, England also made a truce for Portugal with Algiers,
and this truce has cost us fifteen hundred thousand dollars, besides
what it may cost hereafter. Timber had been promised to be cut for the
Algerines, of a kind which this country could not furnish in due
quality. Some of it was to be brought so far as from the north-west
branch of the Susquehanna. He would pass over Lord Dorchester's speech
to the Indians, and the British soldiers and savages joining the
tomahawk against our Western frontiers. He mentioned these things,
merely to keep them in view. There was something, he said, which he
could never think of without surprise. This was a conversation between
Lord Grenville and Mr. Pinckney. It was related in a letter, dated the
9th of January, 1794, from Mr. Pinckney. It took notice of Lord
Grenville telling Mr. Pinckney the desire which the British Government
had of maintaining harmony with the United States, and their readiness
to support the Government of this country against a dangerous Jacobin
faction who wanted to overturn it. Mr. G. said, that this betrayed more
interference on the part of Britain than there ever had been on the part
of France. From this time our Government had taken a leaning towards
Britain. French influence was only a sentiment which we felt for the
sake of liberty, but which was sometimes conjured up as a chimera to
serve certain purposes. The United States had a real interest in
cherishing the sentiment, which never could be dangerous.

As for British influence, it was a matter much more substantial. That
people speak the same language with us, are scattered from one end of
the continent to the other, intermarry with us, and have a very great
commercial intercourse. Lord Grenville's proposition had led to Mr.
Jay's Treaty. As to France trying to engage us in the war, any other
nation in the world would be glad to do so. France had addressed the
people of America, and was resisted: Britain had addressed our
Government; and Mr. G. feared that the latter had not made so firm a
stand. While Congress were taking proper measures to check the
depredations, Mr. Jay, to the astonishment of mankind, was named
Ambassador to England. The Treaty was signed on the 19th of November,
1794. The instructions, Mr. G. had never seen, but if we may judge from
the Treaty itself, they were extremely full. For the making of such a
Treaty he had never heard a reason, nor had he ever been able to learn
one good consequence likely to accrue from it. It had been called an
instrument of peace, and its first effect was, that we were summoned to
fight with France, Spain, and Holland. One of the articles was that free
ships do not make free goods. This was highly injurious both to France
and the United States; it implied a breach of the law of nations,
because, before you can search for an enemy's goods you must stop
neutral ships. This regulation could only be understood as operating
against France. If we could not help the practice going on, we should at
least have suffered it to stand as it was, without any countenance. All
the principal articles of export from the United States were declared
contraband, except tobacco, and, indeed, that might be included under
the general title of provisions, as people would sometimes be in want of
a chew. He spoke of this provision clause as infamous. He referred to
Count Bernstoff, Minister of Denmark, who had kept his country in a more
honorable situation than perhaps any other in Europe had done during the
present war. Mr. G. read the refusal of Count Bernstoff to comply with
the British requisition to that effect. During the armed neutrality, the
United States had owned that free bottoms should make free goods. Was
there any reason since to alter our opinion? He would be glad to hear
gentlemen answer if there was any. He had always said that the provision
article was unjust to France, and yet on account of the British Treaty
we are to plunge into a war before we know whether we are in the right
or in the wrong. Gentlemen who had promoted the British Treaty now came
forward to support it, but it would now be more manly to declare at once
that we cannot do so. In Citizen Adet's complaints, many articles were
unjust and trifling, but this was always the case in productions of that
sort. Mr. G. then referred to the speech of Barras: he said that Britain
still went on robbing and impressing American seamen. Mr. HARPER had
yesterday said that the impressments were few; but how were we to be
certain of that? The men are not allowed to write to us, and Mr.
Pinckney informs us that vast numbers of them are in French jails. He
had always wondered at our having so few communications on this head
from the Executive. A law had passed in this House and in the Senate
upon this subject, without any information from that quarter. Gentlemen
had allowed that it would be just enough to grant an equality of
privileges to every foreign nation; but, Mr. HARPER had objected, that
if this were granted to France, she would still continue to demand. When
she makes an unjust claim, said Mr. G., we should stop; he would not be
for going any further. The French had not acted on vague claims; they
take neutral and contraband articles; they take the ships, and when they
find our seamen on board of British vessels, they threaten to treat
them as pirates, and will not allow them to prove that they were
impressed.


TUESDAY, May 30.

JOHN FOWLER, from Kentucky, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.

_Answer to President's Speech._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
Address reported in Answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES; when

Mr. COIT said he thought that part of the 5th paragraph which related to
the Executive Directory would be less exceptionable, and equally convey
their disapprobation of such sentiments, if it were expressed more
generally, and without any allusion to M. Barras. He proposed,
therefore, to strike out from "at," in the 4th line of the 5th
paragraph, to "United States," in the 6th line, and to insert "any
sentiments tending to derogate from that confidence; such sentiments,
wherever entertained, serve to evince an imperfect knowledge of the real
opinion of our constituents."

Mr. W. SMITH objected to the amendment of the gentleman from
Connecticut, (Mr. COIT,) because it was hypothetical. He wished, as the
fact was clearly established, to have a direct reference to the Speech
of Barras, in their indignation at the sentiments. As the matter had
appeared of sufficient importance to find a place in the PRESIDENT's
Speech, he thought it was also worthy of their notice. He insisted upon
its being an attempt to divide the people of this country from their
Government, by speaking insultingly of the latter, and flattering the
former. He did not exactly know what was meant by the "suggestion of our
former tyrants," but he supposed it meant bribery, and that by
"perfidious people," General Washington was included.

Mr. W. SMITH said, that by the Government, the Executive only was meant.
He was convinced of this from the manner in which he had seen the word
used in the French Government paper, entitled the _Redacteur_.

Mr. COIT believed, that whatever M. Barras had said, it was not worth
their attention. We might defy France or Frenchmen to say worse of us
than they themselves said. He did not himself know how far the Speech of
Barras was an act of Government; for, said he, when we directed our
Speaker to reprimand Randal and Whitney, the words he used upon the
occasion were not an act of the House. On another occasion, when the
House were about to receive the French flag, they could not call what
was said by the Speaker on that occasion, an act of the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS said, if Mr. Pinckney's letter was an authentic paper, the
Speech of Barras was likewise so; and if so, it was doubtless an
indignity to Government. He did not think with the gentleman from
Massachusetts, (Mr. FREEMAN,) that it was "childish gasconade." He
believed it was intended as an insult to the Government of this country.
As to the gratitude which had been said to belong to the French nation,
for their assistance in the war, he thought their services were amply
repaid by the separation of this country from Great Britain. Besides, he
added, the French never came to the assistance of this country until
they saw we were likely to be successful in our struggle.

Mr. GORDON said there could be no doubt of the authenticity of Barras'
Speech, since it stood upon the same ground as the rest of the
documents. It was a flagrant insult upon Government, in his opinion, and
warranted all that had been said upon it, as it was doubtless an attempt
to separate the people from the Government.

Mr. THATCHER said the question was, whether or not any notice should be
taken of the insulting Speech of Barras. When, said he, the French flag
was presented to this House, we were told we were not to stop to reason,
but to express forthwith our feelings of affection. But now, when the
most unexampled insult is offered us, such as one man would not receive
from another, we are not to notice it at all, lest it should offend the
French Republic. He knew of only one reason for passing it over in
silence, and that, it was true, had some weight with him. That Barras
spoke as the organ of the French nation, there could be no doubt; but he
had his doubts whether he knew himself what he said. The Speech had
strong marks of _delirium_, and he could not help believing that, when
he delivered it, he was either _drunk_ or _mad_. If the world went on
for six thousand years to come, they would never again behold such a
production.

Mr. MCDOWELL was in favor of the amendment. He did not think himself
bound, as had been insinuated by the gentleman from South Carolina, to
echo all the sentiments in the PRESIDENT's Speech. He wished to have an
opinion of his own. He agreed that Barras' Speech was an indignity to
the United States. He felt it, and would express it: but he did not
think this the proper time. He denied the justness of the construction
put upon the Speech by the gentleman from South Carolina. He supposed by
"perfidious persons," was meant the persons in this country, generally
called the "British faction." He differed in opinion also with that
gentleman on the subject of dividing the people and Government, and
could not allow that the phrase "good people" was intended as an insult.
He allowed it was going too far to say that we owed our liberty to
France; but being in some respect true, it took off from the offence. He
was sorry to see on one side of the House constant attempts made to
excite the resentment of the people of this country against France. It
was not necessary at present to raise such feelings. They were not about
to unsheath the sword, and to say, "We conquer or die." What gentlemen
could not effect by reason, they seemed inclined to effect in a
different way. He did not think this fair conduct.

Mr. VENABLE supported the amendment. He did not think any of the
objections made against it had much weight in them. He thought the mode
of expressing our sense of the indignity shown to this country by the
Speech in question, was judiciously chosen by the gentleman from
Connecticut. It was most consistent with dignity. It was not wise in
them to take notice of every harsh expression which might be used
against this country in any foreign nation; for, if such were our
conduct, foreign nations would have good ground of complaint against us,
and on that floor the account would be settled. Nor did he think it very
becoming or dignified in gentlemen in that House so to express
themselves as to excite frequent risibility; nor was it very honorable
to that Assembly. [Alluding to the gentleman from Massachusetts.]

Mr. SITGREAVES had no doubt of the Speech of Barras being an official
paper, and that its object was to divide the people from the Government.
If he proved this, he trusted the language of the report would be
preserved. It would be allowed that Barras was the mouth of the
Directory, and that the sentiments which he speaks, are not his own, but
what were beforehand agreed upon. It was doubtless, therefore, a solemn
official act. With respect to the observation of the gentleman from
Virginia, that what he said respecting our Government was not applicable
to the Executive, but to the people at large, he believed he was wholly
mistaken, as the word Government, in the French language, constantly
meant Executive, as was abundantly clear from the way in which it was
used in Mr. Adet's notes. [He quoted a number of passages to prove his
assertion.] It was generally used for the Executive in contradistinction
to Congress, or any other of the constituted authorities. If it were
clearly intended to convey an insult upon our Executive, (and there
could be no doubt of it,) even the mover of the amendment could not
think it unbecoming in that House to express themselves in the words of
the Address.

Mr. GALLATIN said, whatever might be the insult intended by the Speech
of the Executive Directory, he thought it best to notice it in general
terms as it was the sentiment which was objectionable and not the
Government of France. But as so much had been said about Government and
people, he would say, that an insult offered to the people could not be
less offensive than one offered to the Government. He supposed they
alluded to the British Treaty, which was as much the instrument of
Congress as of the Executive, and of the people as either, since they
very generally petitioned in favor of it. He then took notice of the
perversions which the gentleman from South Carolina had put upon the
words of Barras, and denied that there was the least ground for them,
and said that the _Gazette of the United States_ might as well be
called a Government paper of this country, as the _Redacteur_, that of
France. If, said Mr. G., it be our intention to declare war at once,
then there might be some propriety in taking hold of every word which
would bear to be construed into an insult, but if we wished for peace,
it was unwise to do so. Besides, he said, this Speech was not
communicated in an official manner, nor could it be so communicated. It
was sent by Mr. Pinckney in a newspaper, from which the copy sent to
them was translated, but the translation was not even authenticated, as
usual. He did not dispute the fact, but it was a thing which they were
not bound to notice; indeed, an error with respect to a name appeared on
the face of the paper; and being delivered to Mr. Monroe, who was no
longer Minister, it could not be officially communicated. He therefore
thought it was not worth their notice.

Mr. OTIS thought it right to pay respect to what was recommended by the
PRESIDENT. The question was whether they should notice the insult
generally, or in reference to the Directory. He was in favor of the
first; but as this was the only opportunity given in the Address of
expressing their opinion of the conduct of the French Government, he
wished the Address to stand as reported.

Mr. O. remarked upon Barras' Speech. He did not know what was meant by
granting peace. When parties were at war, one granted the other peace;
or sometimes a stronger power suffered a weaker to be at peace. He
supposed the French meant it in the latter sense towards this country.
On condition that we respect her sovereignty! What was meant here? If it
was sovereignty over their own nation, we had nothing to do with it; if
it was any other, it must be the sovereignty they had over us. He
concluded by remarking, that if there were any members in that House
upon whom any imputation could rest of their being unduly attached to
the French cause, he thought it a good opportunity to come forward and
convince the world that the charges were unjust.

Mr. LIVINGSTON took notice of what had fallen from the gentleman last
up, and showed the folly of adopting an irritating tone; as, if we
charged a foreign government with making use of one disrespectful
expression, they would have no difficulty in retorting the complaint, as
in the course of that debate, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
HARPER) had called the King of Spain the humble vassal of France, and
had not been sparing of his epithets to other powers; and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. THATCHER) had termed Barras drunk or mad. He
also noticed the constructions put upon the words "granting peace," and
"sovereignty," as very extravagant. The Speech, he allowed, was bad
enough, but he saw no reason for torturing it in this manner.

Mr. GILES said the gentleman from Massachusetts had called upon persons
who might lie under imputation of being friends to France, to come
forward, and show the imputation false. He informed that gentleman that
he did not feel his reputation hurt by any imputation which he or any
other person might throw upon him. He would rather the gentleman would
convince them they were wrong, than call them names.

Mr. OTIS explained. He declared he meant only to say that they had been
unjustly charged with those imputations, and that such a conduct would
show it.

Mr. W. SMITH again urged the propriety of retaining the words in the
Address as reported, as the amendment proposed had no reference to the
PRESIDENT's Speech, as that referred to an official act; whereas the
amendment had no relation to France, but would apply to the people of
China, or the people of this country, as well as to those of France. He
believed the discussion had been of some use, because it was now on all
sides acknowledged that the Speech of Barras was an insult, which was
not allowed at the beginning of the debate. He could only say that
gentlemen died hard; to use the expression of his friend from
Pennsylvania, (Mr. SITGREAVES,) they seem determined to _die in the last
ditch_. The objections to the words of the present Address, were like
the objections of _Thomas Paine_ to the writings of Moses. He denied
that there was any similarity between expressions used in debate in that
House, and expressions used by an Executive authority. No notice, he
said, ought to be taken of what fell from members in that House, whilst
they were allowed to be in order; and if foreign Ministers attended to
hear their debates, and heard things which they did not like, they ought
not to take exceptions at it, since they came there uninvited, and it
was their duty to say what appeared to them right at the time.

The question was put on the amendment, when there appeared 49 votes for
it, and 49 against it. The Chairman declared it carried in the
affirmative.


WEDNESDAY, May 31.

_Answer to the President's Speech._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
Answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech, Mr. DAYTON's amendment being under
consideration.

Mr. HARTLEY was persuaded there was but one wish in the House with
respect to peace, notwithstanding insinuations to the contrary; but he
could not agree with the proposed amendment, as he wished the
negotiation to be left wholly to the PRESIDENT. The treaty entered into
with France provided for their being placed on the same footing with
other nations, and wished that right to be recognized by negotiation,
and he doubted not the PRESIDENT would do it; for as he must see that
peace was the desire of all, he would take such steps as would be best
calculated to lead to it. He was against encroachments on the Executive,
as, if they once begun, there was no knowing where they could stop. He
thought there was no danger of war; it would be a disagreeable thing
for men who fought in the Revolutionary war, to be obliged to unsheathe
their swords against France; but he trusted before they rose, means
would be taken for putting the country into a state of defence.

The question was then taken on the Address as amended, and resolved in
the affirmative--yeas 62, nays 36, as follows:

      YEAS--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David
      Bard, James A. Bayard, Theophilus Bradbury, David Brooks,
      John Chapman, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran,
      Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James
      Davenport, John Dennis, George Dent, George Ege, Thomas
      Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman,
      Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, Henry Glenn,
      Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William
      B. Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B.
      Harrison, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, David Holmes,
      Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera,
      Samuel Lyman, James Machir, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan,
      John Nicholas, Harrison G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John
      Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall,
      William Shepard, Thompson J. Skinner, Thomas Sinnickson,
      Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Samuel Smith, William
      Smith, (of Charleston,) George Thatcher, Richard Thomas,
      Mark Thomson, Abram Trigg, John E. Van Allen, Peleg
      Wadsworth, and John Williams.

      NAYS--Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J.
      Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
      Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, William
      Findlay, John Fowler, William B. Giles, James Gillespie,
      Andrew Gregg, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter Jones, Edward
      Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon,
      Blair M'Clenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, Josiah
      Parker, Samuel Sitgreaves, William Smith (of Pinckney
      District), Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas
      Sumter, John Swanwick, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

_Resolved_, That Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said
Address; and that Mr. VENABLE, Mr. KITTERA, and Mr. NATHANIEL FREEMAN,
Jr., be a committee to wait on the President, to know when and where it
will be convenient for him to receive the same.

And then the House adjourned.


SATURDAY, June 3.

A report was received from the Commissioners of the Federal City, which
was ordered to be printed.

_Answer to the President's Speech._

Mr. VENABLE, 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, according to order,
waited on the PRESIDENT, who signified to them that it would be
convenient to him to receive the said Address, at twelve o'clock this
day, at his own house.

Mr. LYON said he yesterday voted against the appointment of a committee
to wait upon the PRESIDENT to know when and where he would receive their
Address, because he believed the PRESIDENT should always be ready to
receive important communications. He wished to make a motion, which was,
"that such members as do not choose to attend upon the PRESIDENT to
present the Answer to his Speech, shall be excused." He wished to be
understood. He thought the motion a reasonable one, because it proposed
to leave them at liberty to do as they pleased. And by the rules he saw,
he was obliged to attend, except sick, or leave of absence was obtained;
now, as he hoped not to be sick, he wished to put himself out of the
power of the Sergeant-at-Arms, if he did not attend. He had been told he
might stay behind without being noticed; but this was not enough for
him, as he was a timid man, and the House had the law on their side, as
he recollected something of a reprimand which had been given to Mr.
WHITNEY. [The SPEAKER reminded him it was out of order to censure the
proceedings of the House on any former occasion.] He said he stood
corrected, and proceeded.

He had spoken, he said, to both sides of the House (_as they were
called_) on the subject. One side dissuaded him from his motion, and
laughed at it; the other side did not wish to join him in it, because it
would look like disrespect to the person lately elected, who was not a
man of their choice; but he trusted our magnanimous PRESIDENT would,
with the enlightened yeomanry of America, despise such a boyish piece of
business. This, he said, was no new subject with him, he had long heard
the folly of the wise made a matter of wonder in this respect. It was
said this was not the time to abolish the custom; but this was the cant
used against every kind of reform. No better time could ever arrive, he
said, than this, which was the threshold of a new Presidency, at a time
when the man elected to the office was beloved and revered by his
fellow-citizens; he was as yet unused to vain adulation; he had spent a
great part of his life amongst a people whose love of a plainness of
manner forbids all pageantry; he would be glad to see the custom done
away. Were he acting in his own personal character, he perhaps might
conform to the idle usage, but acting as he was for eighty thousand
people, every father of a family in his district would condemn him for
such an act.

Mr. BLOUNT said he had seconded the motion of the gentleman from
Vermont, in order to give him an opportunity of stating his reasons for
making it, and not from any desire to rescind the rule.

Mr. DANA observed that the House would not wish to do violence to the
gentleman's feelings. It was true some of the most respectable men in
the United States had waited upon the PRESIDENT in a similar way, yet,
if the gentleman thought it would not comport with his own dignity to do
it, he hoped he would be excused.

The motion was put, and carried unanimously.

The SPEAKER informed the House the hour was arrived at which the
PRESIDENT had appointed to receive them.

Mr. MACON moved that the House do now adjourn. He should wait upon the
PRESIDENT; but it seemed to be understood that members were obliged to
go. He thought, however the power of the House might extend to bringing
a member into the House, there was no power to carry him out.

The motion was negatived without a division.

The House then withdrew, and waited upon the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES with the following Address:

      _To the President of the United States_:

      Sir, the interesting detail of those events which have
      rendered the convention of Congress, at this time,
      indispensable, (communicated in your Speech to both
      Houses,) has excited in us the strongest emotions. Whilst
      we regret the occasion, we cannot omit to testify our
      approbation of the measure, and to pledge ourselves that no
      considerations of private inconvenience shall prevent, on
      our part, a faithful discharge of the duties to which we
      are called.

      We have constantly hoped that the nations of Europe, whilst
      desolated by foreign wars, or convulsed by intestine
      divisions, would have left the United States to enjoy that
      peace and tranquillity to which the impartial conduct of
      our Government has entitled us; and it is now, with extreme
      regret, we find the measures of the French Republic tending
      to endanger a situation so desirable and interesting to our
      country.

      Upon this occasion we feel it our duty to express, in the
      most explicit manner, the sensations which the present
      crisis has excited, and to assure you of our zealous
      co-operation in those measures which may appear necessary
      for our security or peace.

      Although it is the earnest wish of our hearts that peace
      may be maintained with the French Republic, and with all
      the world, yet we will never surrender those rights which
      belong to us as a nation; and whilst we view with
      satisfaction the wisdom, dignity, and moderation, which
      have marked the measures of the supreme Executive of our
      country, in its attempts to remove, by candid explanations,
      the complaints and jealousies of France, we feel the full
      force of that indignity which has been offered our country
      in the rejection of its Minister. No attempts to wound our
      rights as a sovereign State will escape the notice of our
      constituents; they will be felt with indignation, and
      repelled with that decision which shall convince the world
      that we are not a degraded people, that we can never submit
      to the demands of a foreign power without examination and
      without discussion.

      Knowing as we do the confidence reposed by the people of
      the United States in their Government, we cannot hesitate
      in expressing our indignation at any sentiments tending to
      derogate from that confidence. Such sentiments, wherever
      entertained, served to evince an imperfect knowledge of the
      opinions of our constituents. An attempt to separate the
      people of the United States from their Government, is an
      attempt to separate them from themselves; and although
      foreigners, who know not the genius of our country, may
      have conceived the project, and foreign emissaries may
      attempt the execution, yet the united efforts of our
      fellow-citizens will convince the world of its
      impracticability.

      Sensibly as we feel the wound which has been inflicted by
      the transactions disclosed in your communications, yet we
      think with you, that neither the honor nor the interest of
      the United States forbid the repetition of advances for
      preserving peace. We, therefore, receive with the utmost
      satisfaction your information that a fresh attempt at
      negotiation will be instituted; and we cherish the hope
      that a mutual spirit of conciliation, and a disposition on
      the part of France to compensate for any injuries which may
      have been committed upon our neutral rights; and, on the
      part of the United States, to place France on grounds
      similar to those of other countries in their relation and
      connection with us, if any inequalities shall be found to
      exist, will produce an accommodation compatible with the
      engagements, rights, duties and honor of the United States.
      Fully, however, impressed with the uncertainty of the
      result, we shall prepare to meet with fortitude any
      unfavorable events which may occur, and to extricate
      ourselves from their consequences with all the skill we
      possess, and all the efforts in our power. Believing with
      you that the conduct of the Government has been just and
      impartial to foreign nations, that the laws for the
      preservation of peace have been proper, and that they have
      been fairly executed, the Representatives of the people do
      not hesitate to declare that they will give their most
      cordial support to the execution of principles so
      deliberately and uprightly established.

      The many interesting subjects which you have recommended to
      our consideration, and which are so strongly enforced by
      this momentous occasion, will receive every attention which
      their importance demands; and we trust that by the decided
      and explicit conduct which will govern our deliberations,
      every insinuation will be repelled which is derogatory to
      the honor and independence of our country.

      Permit us, in offering this Address, to express our
      satisfaction at your promotion to the first office in the
      Government, and our entire confidence that the pre-eminent
      talents and patriotism which have placed you in this
      distinguished situation, will enable you to discharge its
      various duties with satisfaction to yourself and advantage
      to our common country.

To which the PRESIDENT returned the following answer:

      _Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      I receive with great satisfaction your candid approbation
      of the convention of Congress; and thank you for your
      assurances that the interesting subjects recommended to
      your consideration shall receive the attention which their
      importance demands; and that your co-operation may be
      expected in those measures which may appear necessary for
      our security or peace.

      The declaration of the Representatives of this nation, of
      their satisfaction at my promotion to the first office in
      the Government, and of their confidence in my sincere
      endeavors to discharge the various duties of it, with
      advantage to our common country, have excited my most
      grateful sensibility.

      I pray you, gentlemen, to believe, and to communicate such
      assurance to our constituents, that no event which I can
      foresee to be attainable by any exertions in the discharge
      of my duties, can afford me so much cordial satisfaction as
      to conduct a negotiation with the French Republic, to a
      removal of prejudices, a correction of errors, a
      dissipation of umbrages, an accommodation of all
      differences, and a restoration of harmony and affection,
      to the mutual satisfaction of both nations. And whenever
      the legitimate organs of intercourse shall be restored, and
      the real sentiments of the two Governments can be candidly
      communicated to each other, although strongly impressed
      with the necessity of collecting ourselves into a manly
      posture of defence, I nevertheless entertain an encouraging
      confidence that a mutual spirit of conciliation, a
      disposition to compensate injuries, and accommodate each
      other in all our relations and connections, will produce an
      agreement to a treaty consistent with the engagements,
      rights, duties, and honor of both nations.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, June 3, 1797.


MONDAY, June 5.

_Defensive Measures._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, and the Speech of the PRESIDENT, at the opening of
the session, having been read,

Mr. W. SMITH said, he wished to lay upon the table a number of
resolutions, which it appeared, if it should not be found advisable to
carry the whole of them into effect, were at least worthy of discussion.
He did not, however, at present, pledge himself to support the whole:
they were as follow:

      "1. _Resolved_, That further provision ought to be made by
      law, for fortifying the forts and harbors of the United
      States.

      "2. _Resolved_, That further provision be made by law, for
      completing and manning the frigates United States,
      Constitution, and Constellation.

      "3. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, for
      procuring by purchase a further naval force, to consist of
      ---- frigates of ---- guns, and ---- sloops of war of ----
      guns.

      "4. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, for
      empowering the President to employ the naval force of the
      United States, as convoys to protect the trade thereof.

      "5. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, for
      regulating the arming of the merchant vessels of the United
      States.

      "6. _Resolved_, That the existing Military Establishment
      ought to be augmented by an addition of one regiment or
      corps of artillerists and engineers, and ---- companies of
      dragoons.

      "7. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, for
      empowering the President to raise a provisional army, to
      consist of ---- regiments of infantry, one regiment of
      artillery, and one regiment of dragoons, by commissioning
      the officers, and by volunteers or enlistments, whenever
      the circumstances of the country shall, in his opinion,
      render the said army necessary for the protection and
      defence of the United States: _Provided_, That neither the
      officers nor soldiers shall receive any pay or emoluments
      until called into actual service.

      "8. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, to authorize
      the President to borrow, on the credit of the United
      States, a sum not exceeding ---- dollars, to defray the
      expense which may arise in providing for the defence and
      security of the United States.

      "9. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, to raise a
      revenue adequate to the reimbursement, within ---- years,
      of such sum as may be borrowed, as aforesaid.

      "10. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, to
      prohibit, for a limited time, the exportation of arms,
      ammunition, and military and naval stores."

The resolutions having been read from the chair,

Mr. W. SMITH moved the first of them.

Mr. GILES wished the gentleman would reverse his propositions, and let
the one for raising money come first. He did not know whether they were
prepared to meet this expense. He did not mean to oppose the present
motion; he supposed it would pass. But he thought they were about to be
too precipitous in their measures. At a time when all Europe seemed to
be tired of war, and about to make peace, we seemed to be disposed to
rush into it. He did not believe that much good would be done by this
system of fortification. He did not think the United States were more
secure now, than before they had a single work of the kind. We have,
said he, an extensive sea-coast, and it was not to be expected that an
enemy would choose to come to precisely the place where a fortification
stands. It was his opinion that the interests of the country would be
served, by letting this matter lie over till next session.

Mr. WILLIAMS observed, that the sense of the committee should be first
taken upon the propriety of going into the measure; if there was a
majority in favor of it, (and he could not doubt it,) the matter would
be referred to a select committee, who would make their report upon it.

Mr. S. SMITH was in favor of going into this measure; for if the war
continued in Europe, he thought it probable we might be drawn into it.

Mr. SWANWICK should not be opposed to the present motion, because he
agreed with the gentleman from Maryland, that whilst the war continued
in Europe there was a probability of this country being drawn into the
vortex. But he thought there was some weight, also, in the observation
of the gentleman from Virginia, with respect to the ways and means;
because, if, after they should agree to carry into effect certain
measures, they should disagree about the means, their time would have
been spent to no purpose.

The question was put and carried, there being 62 votes in favor of it.

_Completing and Manning the Frigates._

Mr. GALLATIN said, if the question was to determine the principle of
manning the frigates, the resolution stood right as it was. But if it
were not intended, by adopting this resolution, to commit any man, but
only to say that they would take the business into consideration, and if
found useful and necessary, and funds were attainable, they would carry
it into effect, then the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
LIVINGSTON) would be proper. As to the committee's rising, he could see
no ground for it, as these propositions were not new--they had had them
before them for three weeks in the Speech of the PRESIDENT. Of course,
so far as related to the frigates, gentlemen must have formed an
opinion; yet he agreed that it was desirable to see some documents on
the subject, before a decided affirmative or negative was given. He was,
therefore, in favor of the amendment for a committee to be appointed. He
wished all those subjects which were of a doubtful nature to be then
determined. On the other hand, those upon which members were ready to
decide at once, either by an acceptance or rejection, might be voted
upon in the form in which they were introduced.

Mr. PARKER read the motion which was entered into last year, and thought
it would be a good model for the present.

Mr. W. SMITH was of a different opinion. He thought the committee should
first decide the abstract principle. He thought it would be wrong to
refer to a select committee a business in which every member was so
intimately interested, and he doubted not gentlemen were ready to decide
upon this abstract question. With regard to expense, he was of opinion
that if the situation of the country required it, that should be no
object. If gentlemen thought differently, they would of course negative
the proposition. Any information on the subject could be got before the
business was finished. He thought they should first say what were the
necessary objects of expense, and then provide the money, which might be
done by borrowing or by taxes. If there was a necessity for the expense,
there was no doubt the money would be raised. If gentlemen were not
prepared to discuss the subject, he had no objection to the committee's
rising, and, in the House, the Secretary of War might be called upon for
information.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought the question was not fairly presented. It was
whether they should man the frigates. But when they were called upon to
determine this, they should know when they would be ready to receive the
men. The probability was that the frigates would not be ready to receive
the men before the next session of Congress.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) was in favor of the original proposition. He
wished to provide for manning all the frigates which could be got ready
before the next session of Congress. He believed if they adopted this
plan, unnecessary delay would be prevented.

Mr. PARKER was ready to vote for the proposition of the gentleman from
South Carolina. He believed the frigate in Philadelphia might be
equipped, rigged, and manned, in three months. The only reason why he
varied his motion was, that he might include the next proposition; but
he believed it would be better for them to stand separate, as, before he
voted for the additional vessels, he should wish to know how the means
were to be got, and for what purpose they were to be used. The vessel
at Boston, he said, would not be ready so soon, but it would be in
readiness before the next meeting of Congress; that at Baltimore would
be in readiness to receive her men in four months.

Mr. S. SMITH said, the frigate building at Baltimore would be launched
on the 4th of July, and the equipments were in greater forwardness than
those for the frigate at Philadelphia.

Mr. BALDWIN was against referring this proposition to a select
committee. It would be desirable, indeed, to know what the cost of doing
the business would be, but every one knew how little to be relied upon
were estimates of this kind. He was ready to vote for manning the
frigates; indeed there was no question upon which he was so ready to say
aye, as upon this.

The question was about to be put on Mr. LIVINGSTON's motion, when

Mr. VARNUM said he thought the wording of the resolution improper, as
the word "completing" would clash with the act of last session.

The question was put and negatived, 50 to 34.

Mr. MACON wished the frigates to be completed, but not manned, he
therefore moved to strike out the words "and manning."

The question was put and negatived; there being only twenty-four votes
in favor of it.

Mr. GILES moved to strike out the word "completing;" but, after some
conversation, the motion was withdrawn, and the original resolution was
carried.

The third proposition next came under consideration.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the gentleman who introduced this motion, would tell
them for what purpose these additional vessels were wanted. He supposed
this resolution to be connected with the next, and if so, he thought
they should be considered together. What, he asked, were to be the
instructions given to the commanders of these vessels? He thought it a
very embarrassing business, and one that would certainly lead to war;
nay, indeed, the thing seemed to be a war operation in itself.

Mr. W. SMITH wished the gentleman had made his inquiries before. They
would have come more properly when the frigates were under
consideration, as the same objection would be against both; and the next
resolution had no more connection with this than with that already
agreed to. The gentleman seemed to have let go the opportunity of
calling upon him; as, however, he did not wish to evade his call,
(though he was not willing to say he would himself vote for the
measure,) he would say that it appeared to him, from the present state
of the commerce of this country, to be necessary to provide convoys for
our vessels. These vessels might not, indeed, be employed as a regular
convoy, but partly confined to the coasts and harbors.

Mr. NICHOLAS expected the gentleman from South Carolina would have
acknowledged that the two resolutions were connected. Indeed he must
have intended those vessels to be employed in this way, or such a
resolution would not have been introduced. With respect to Sweden's
treaty for a reciprocal convoy, there was some ground for it, as there
was a difference between the Northern Powers of Europe, as to the
principle of free ships making free goods; but where there was no
difference as to the principle, no such thing could take place.

Mr. GALLATIN said the present resolution was certainly in some degree
connected with the next. It was understood that the purchasing of
frigates and sloops of war, was for the purpose of convoying our trade.
Under the present circumstances of this country, he should be opposed to
this proposition; not that he denied the right of neutral powers to
afford convoys to their merchant vessels; but, because under present
circumstances it was impolitic to adopt the measure, not only for the
reasons urged by the gentleman from Virginia, but on account of our
situation with respect to France at the present moment. By our treaty
with France, enemy's property was to be respected on board of American
vessels, and certain articles used in the building of ships were not
considered as contraband; the PRESIDENT would, of course, be obliged to
give orders to have our vessels protected in this situation, and who
could not see that this would be the source of war; and if the convoy
were not to be employed to enforce these two privileges, he did not see
what use it could be of. He knew that depredations without number had
been committed in the West Indies; but he was led to believe that this
was done by pirates more than by any other vessels. But suppose it were
practicable to distinguish between those vessels which were regularly,
and those which were piratically taken; yet, he must confess he would
not be for running the risk of a rupture, by sending out armed vessels
to contest the point, especially when we have reason to believe that
these attacks are unauthorized by the French Government.

Mr. G. thought it would only be necessary to extend our navy in case of
war, and were this unhappily to be our situation, vessels might easily
be purchased without delay; but whilst we were at peace, he did not
think the advantages which could be derived from a convoy would be a
sufficient inducement to go into the measure. Besides he was induced by
another motive to give this proposition his negative. He knew the
depredations upon our commerce had been great; but he did not look upon
this loss as falling only upon merchants. There was not an individual
who did not bear a part of it.[17] For instance, if a merchant paid ten
or fifteen per cent. additional upon his cargo, he will put a
proportionably high price upon his commodities, which must eventually be
paid by the consumer. Therefore, so far as an argument might be drawn
from this circumstance, it became a question of expediency, and he
thought it would be granted, that the loss to individuals would be less
in this way than if they had to support a navy to protect our trade.

Mr. W. SMITH acknowledged that there was considerable weight in the
arguments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, though he did not find
sufficient weight in them to change his opinion of the propriety of the
measure. The gentleman from Virginia had endeavored to show that, as
there was no difference of opinion as to principle between France and
this country, the regulations entered into with Sweden did not apply;
whilst the gentleman from Pennsylvania had produced arguments to show
that we were in that situation. With respect to the treaty articles in
dispute, it would be an easy matter for the President to give the
commanders of our vessels proper instructions on that head. And would
any gentleman say it was not right to defend our vessels against
pirates? Would not the French say, if they were applied to for redress,
"You knew these were pirates; why did you not defend yourselves against
them?" The expense, which seems so much to alarm gentlemen, should be
put out of the question. The only question, said he, is, if your
property is unjustly attacked, will you defend it?

But it was said the loss did not fall upon the merchant, but upon the
consumer. Mr. S. asserted it fell upon the country; and so far from the
expense of the proposed armament being equal to the loss sustained by
captures, it would not, in his opinion, be a tenth part of the amount,
for whatever the plunderers got this country lost. Mr. S. said he had
made a rough calculation of what would be the expense of three frigates,
of 32 guns, and six sloops of war of 16 guns, and found it to be
$926,000, including the equipment and manning for one year.

Mr. GILES said, the gentleman from South Carolina talked of defensive
measures, but his plans were offensive. That gentleman had undertaken to
doubt the right of France to declare her ports rebel ports. Was this
defensive? Every nation had this right. It was not long since Great
Britain exercised it against us. Yet, aided by a convoy, he wished to
push our trade to these ports. This would not only be hazarding the
peace of the country, but taking the direct road to war.

Besides, said Mr. G., could it be expected that six or ten frigates
could convoy all our vessels? No; not a twentieth part of them. They
could, therefore, be of little use, but might be the means of producing
the greatest evil to the country.

Mr. BALDWIN said, in all their determinations with respect to a naval
force, however great the emergency, it has always been determined to
build, rather than purchase vessels, and he saw no reason for departing
from this mode in the present instance.

After some objections from Mr. W. SMITH to the building plan, which he
said would take three or four years to furnish the proposed vessels,
whereas merchant vessels might be immediately purchased, which would
answer the purpose of small frigates, the committee rose, reported the
two resolutions, which the House took up and agreed to, and committees
were appointed to report upon them by bills or otherwise.


WEDNESDAY, June 7.

_Defensive Measures._

ARMING MERCHANT VESSELS.

The 5th, which was in the following words, having been read,

      "_Resolved_, That provision be made, by law, for regulating
      the arming of merchant vessels of the United States,"

Mr. SWANWICK inquired, with what view these vessels were to be provided?
Against whom they were to be employed? and in what cases they were to
defend themselves? The information which he might receive on these
inquiries, he said, would have considerable weight in influencing his
vote.

Mr. HARPER said the detail would be brought forward in the bill; the
principle was now only to be determined. He had not thought of all the
modifications which might be given to it, though he had thought of many;
but it would be best discussed in its general form. The gentleman, if he
thought proper, might introduce into the resolution any principle which
he might wish to have inserted in it.

Mr. WILLIAMS said it was well known that a number of our merchantmen
were arming in different ports of the Union, and it was, therefore,
necessary to regulate this business, to prevent mischief being done.
Gentlemen might differ in opinion with respect to the marine law or laws
of nations on this subject; but all would wish, since vessels were
arming, that they should be put under some restraint. When he voted for
manning the frigates, he did it with a view to have them employed in the
defence of our coasts, and not as a convoy. Our situation, he said, was
truly critical, and he was undetermined how far it would be proper to
arm the merchant vessels of the United States; but to prevent mischief,
he wished the resolution might be agreed to, reserving to himself the
right of voting ultimately for or against it. It might afterwards
undergo such modifications as should be found necessary.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said the gentleman from Pennsylvania had very properly
inquired what was the scope of the present resolution, and he expected
some answer would have been given. The gentleman from South Carolina had
said they must vote for the principle, and the detail would come of
course. So that without knowing its object, whether it was defensive or
offensive, they were called upon to agree to the principle. This
deficiency had been supplied in some degree by the gentleman from New
York. He says the merchants have undertaken to arm their vessels. He
wished to know whence he derived his information? The only information
before them was in the PRESIDENT's Speech, where he says he has
forbidden such armament, except in the East India trade. He therefore
supposed the fact not well founded. What, he asked, was intended to be
done with these armed vessels? He said they must argue hypothetically.
He supposed they were intended to protect our trade. He did not believe
they were meant to operate offensively. But he would ask if this were
the case, if it would not lead directly to war? since individuals would
be left to determine the laws of nations, and of course the peace of the
country would be placed at their disposal, and all precautions, on the
part of Government, would be in vain, since individuals, who might have
an opposite interest to that of the Government, might be continually
committing acts of hostility.

Mr. S. SMITH acknowledged that the present was a very delicate subject;
but had not the PRESIDENT forbidden the arming of merchant vessels, he
should have been of opinion that the merchant vessels of a neutral power
had always a right to arm for their own defence. But he believed it was
necessary that something should be done. Merchants would arm their
vessels from the right given to them by the law of nations, and, if not
restrained, might go on to do acts which could not be justified. Though
he believed merchants possessed the right of arming their vessels, yet,
rather than do any thing which would involve the country in war, he
believed they would desist from the practice, and bear the losses which
they might, for the want of arms, suffer. He moved to strike out the
word "regulating," and to insert in the place of it "restricting in
certain cases."

Mr. GALLATIN said it seemed as if the motion of the gentleman from South
Carolina was susceptible of any shape, since the amendment now
incorporated into it seemed to have a different view from the original.
At present he would state his objections to the principle of the
resolution itself. The first inquiry was, whether the law of nations
permitted the merchant vessels of neutral nations to arm? If they had
not a right to permit it, whether they are not bound to prohibit it? He
had examined the law of nations on this subject, and found no such
authority, nor did the practice of modern times justify the practice. He
took a view of the different stages of society, to show that whenever
regular governments were established, the public defence was always
placed in them, and it was their duty to protect individuals, since they
did not give them leave to protect themselves.

Mr. G. said he knew of no exception but in case of letters of marque and
reprisal, and he did not know a single instance within the last century
where these had been granted, but war had been the consequence, so
repugnant were they to the present state of society. It was true,
nations might be in such a state as to find it necessary to grant such a
power; as when a nation with which it has to do is unable to support the
common relations of intercourse. Two instances of this kind presented
themselves, viz: the East India trade and the Mediterranean trade. In
carrying on our trade with the East Indies, our vessels were met by
those of a number of uncivilized powers, upon whom no restraint could be
had, so that no remedy was left to us, but immediate resistance. Nearly
of the same nature was the situation of the Barbary Powers in the
Mediterranean; and, although we enter into a treaty with them, we have
not a perfect reliance upon their observing their engagements; our
merchant vessels are therefore permitted to trade to those parts armed.
He knew it might be said that, at present, the West Indies were in a
similar situation. He believed, in some respects, they were; and this
could be the only plea for adopting a measure like the present. If it
were to be understood that there was to be an end of the negotiation
with France, or that the privilege of arming would not be abandoned, it
might be proper to authorize the arming of merchant vessels; but he
believed, if it were considered that such a permission would be almost
certain to involve us in war, it would appear to be much more wise to
await the event of the negotiation with France; not that he was afraid
of offending France by a measure of this kind, but he was afraid of
involving our country in a war.

Mr. S. SMITH conceived that Congress were called together to adopt such
measures as were best calculated to preserve the peace of the country,
by means of negotiation, and to fix upon such means of defence as would
not be injurious to the country. It was his opinion that the President
was not authorized by law to prevent the vessels of merchants being
armed; but the merchants of the United States would readily submit to
any loss rather than go to war. He knew that this was the opinion of the
Philadelphia merchants: he had seen many of them. Nor had he met with
one native American who wished to go into this arming plan; they believe
it would infringe our neutrality, and throw us into a war. When he came
here, his mind was scarcely made up on the subject. He did not like to
give up his right to defend his property; but he had found this to be
the general opinion, and therefore he brought forward the amendment,
which had been well amended by the gentleman from Connecticut. The
gentleman from South Carolina had since added _West Indies_, and this
brought them to an issue; for it was war or no war.

If the latter amendment was agreed to, he should be for striking out the
whole, leaving it general; because, with West Indies in it, it would be
particularly pointed.

They had been told of the loss sustained by spoliations, and where it
fell. He believed it fell upon the great body of the people of America,
and that the fall in the price of produce had been occasioned
principally by the British Admiral having forbidden the carrying our
provisions to Hispaniola. The British fleet in the West Indies, he said,
was supplied with provisions from Ireland, whilst the French depended
upon this country for supplies; so that they were our best customers
there.


FRIDAY, June 9.

STEPHEN BULLOCK, from Massachusetts, appeared, produced his credentials,
was qualified, and took his seat.

_Defensive Measures._

NAVAL FORCE.

Mr. W. SMITH said, he had waived a consideration of the third and fourth
resolutions, in order to pass to the fifth, because he thought it was
probable the committee would have determined upon arming our merchant
vessels; and if so, it might have influenced the votes of members on
those; but, as the committee had just decided against arming merchant
vessels, he should propose another resolution to the committee. It was
well known that the three frigates which had been agreed to be manned,
would not be ready for sea for several months; in the mean time there
might be occasion for some armed vessels; he should, therefore, submit
to them the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that
      the _President of the United States_ ought to be authorized
      by law to provide a further naval force, whenever, in his
      opinion, the circumstances of the country shall require the
      same; and that ---- dollars be appropriated for that
      purpose."

The CHAIRMAN said the resolutions of the gentleman from North Carolina
were first in order.

Mr. W. SMITH said he had no objection to the proposition of the
gentleman from North Carolina, as a part of a plan of defence, but he
thought it also necessary to attend to the protection of our commerce.

Mr. BLOUNT said, it was perfectly indifferent to him whether the
gentleman from South Carolina considered his plan as a part or the whole
of a system. That gentleman had accused those who voted against his
proposition, with being unwilling to place the country in a posture of
defence. Now, he had voted against, and should continue to vote against,
his proposition--but he was willing, notwithstanding (as he believed all
those who voted with him were) to put the country in a state of defence.
It was his opinion that internal defence only was necessary. He thought
the system which he had proposed would be sufficient. When they had
adopted this resolution, it might be considered whether any thing more
was necessary. He had no idea of creating a naval force for defence; on
the contrary, he believed it would be the means of plunging us into
fresh difficulties. For this reason, if the resolution he had proposed
were passed into a law, he should go home satisfied, with a belief that
he had done all that was necessary. And he was convinced that his
constituents would believe that he never wanted a disposition to defend
his country when in danger.

Mr. W. SMITH did not think these propositions could be of any use at
present; they would be very proper in case an invasion was apprehended.
He thought the principal object, at this time, was to defend our
commerce, and thereby secure the revenue arising from it, either by an
effectual naval armament, or by an embargo; and he thought he was
correct in saying, in reference to this defence, that the gentleman
opposed every thing, and proposed nothing. Gentlemen, he said, were very
ready to propose things which would cost the public nothing: the militia
measure proposed would cost no more than the passing of the law; but, if
ever any expense was to be incurred, then all was opposition.

The commerce of the country could not be defended, without calling upon
the people for revenue; and he thought those gentlemen who stepped
forward to advocate such measures as involved expense, and which were
consequently in some degree unpopular, deserved the gratitude of their
constituents. He had never hesitated to do this, when he thought it
necessary. He should not, however, object to the passing of this
proposition; he only rose to say, he did not think it immediately
necessary.

Mr. W. SMITH called for the reading of a similar resolution passed in
1794; which being read, and a wish expressed that the present might be
made conformable to it, Mr. BLOUNT gave his consent; and, after a few
observations from Mr. WILLIAMS in favor of the resolution, though he
denied that it could be carried into effect without expense, the
resolution was agreed to.


SATURDAY, June 17.

A bill was reported forbidding citizens of the United States from
entering into the service of any foreign Prince or State in a state of
war, which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole on
Monday.


_Stamp Duties._

Mr. W. SMITH, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill for
laying a stamp duty on vellum, parchment, and paper, viz:

      For a license to practice as a counsellor, attorney, &c.,
      five dollars.

      For every grant, or letters patent, four dollars.

      For every exemplification or certified copy of
      letters-patent, two dollars.

      For every receipt or discharge for any legacy of fifty
      dollars and not more than one hundred dollars, twenty-five
      cents; above one hundred and not more than five hundred
      dollars, fifty cents; and for every additional five hundred
      dollars, one dollar; but not to extend to legacies left to
      a wife, children, or grand-children.

      For every policy of insurance of vessels or goods from one
      district of the United States to another, twenty-five
      cents.

      For every such policy of insurance to a foreign port, for a
      sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, twenty-five cents;
      if it exceeds five hundred dollars, one dollar.

      For every exemplification, of what nature soever, fifty
      cents.

      For every bond, bill, or note, (except the note of the
      chartered banks which may be now or hereafter in
      existence,) not exceeding one hundred dollars, ten cents;
      above one hundred dollars, and not exceeding five hundred
      dollars, twenty-five cents; above five hundred dollars, and
      not exceeding one thousand dollars, fifty-cents; above one
      thousand dollars, seventy-five cents. (If payable within
      sixty days, they will be chargeable with only two-fifths of
      these duties.)

      For every protest of a note, twenty-five cents.

      For every letter of attorney, twenty-five cents.

      For every certificate or debenture, for drawing back any
      duty on the re-shipping of goods, one dollar.

      For every note or bill of lading, for goods from one
      district to another, within the United States, (not in the
      same State,) ten cents.

      For ditto to a foreign port, twenty-five cents.

      For every inventory or catalogue of furniture, goods, or
      effects, in any case required by law, (except in the case
      of distraining for rent, or an execution,) fifty cents.

      For every certificate of a share or shares in the Bank of
      the United States, or other bank, ten cents.

The bill was twice read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of
the Whole on Monday.


WEDNESDAY, June 21.

_Expatriation._

The SPEAKER having informed the House that the unfinished business of
yesterday, viz: the bill prohibiting citizens of the United States from
entering into the military or naval service of any foreign Prince or
State, had the priority.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to have it postponed, in order to take up the bill
respecting an additional naval armament. This motion was supported by
Mr. GILES, and opposed by Mr. W. SMITH, and negatived, 35 to 34.

The bill respecting foreign service was then taken up, and, on motion of
Mr. HAVENS, it was agreed to leave the time for its taking place a
blank.

Mr. COIT moved to strike out the sixth section.

      [It defined the mode in which a citizen of the United
      States might dissolve the ties of citizenship, and become
      an alien.]

Mr. SEWALL hoped it would be struck out. In every country in the world
where civil society was established, the citizens of that society owed a
certain duty to their Government, which they could not readily get rid
of; but they were about to establish a principle to put it in the power
of the citizens of the United States, at their will, and without any
pretence, to say they would be no longer subject to the Government; and
this is at a moment of danger, when citizens of other countries might
be called home from this country. He thought this would be extremely
wrong; it would be giving an opportunity for insult to our courts and
country, and he was sure no nation would show us so much complaisance in
return.

Mr. CLAIBORNE thought it no more binding for citizens born in the United
States to continue citizens of the United States, than it was for a
Roman Catholic or Protestant to continue of that opinion, when he
arrived at the years of maturity and could judge for himself. He
insisted upon it, men had a natural right to choose under what
government they would live; and they had no reason to fear our citizens
leaving us whilst our Government was well executed. He did not wish
citizens of the United States to be in the situation of subjects of
Great Britain, who, though they had left the country forty years ago,
were liable to be considered as subjects of that Government. He trusted
the rights of man would not be thus infringed, but that they should
allow the right of expatriation unclogged.

Mr. SEWALL said, there was a great difference between the two cases
which the gentleman had stated. A man born and educated in a country
certainly owed it obligations, which were not to be shaken off the
moment he chose to do so. The different societies of the world, he said,
were like so many families independent of each other; and what family,
he asked, would suffer any of its members to leave it and go into
another when they pleased? He thought it unreasonable that it should be
so.

Mr. W. SMITH said, that the doctrine of perpetual allegiance was derived
from Great Britain, and, though it might be good in theory, was not so
in practice. They had departed from many doctrines derived from that
country, and the time was come, he believed, for departing from this.
The idea of a man being compelled to live in this country, contrary to
his will, seemed to be repugnant to our ideas of liberty. He thought
when a man was so disgusted with a country as to resolve to leave it,
for the purpose of becoming a citizen of another country, he should be
at liberty to do so on his complying with certain formalities, and
should never again be re-admitted. It was upon this principle that this
section is founded, and he thought it valuable.

Mr. S. thought this section essential, as it would be a means of
preventing quarrels with foreign countries. For instance, if a citizen
of this country took command of a French ship of war, and were to commit
hostilities on the property of citizens of the United States, if he were
taken he might allege that he was a citizen of the French Republic, and
that Government might claim him as such; but if this bill passed, no man
could cover himself under this pretence who had not complied with the
requisitions in this act. He mentioned the case of Mr. Talbot.

Mr. S. said they held out inducements for persons to come to this
country. We did not allow they owed allegiance to any other country
after they had become citizens of this. To grant this would be a fatal
doctrine to this country. It would be to declare that, in case we were
at war with another country, that country might recall persons from
this, who formerly came from thence. Many persons of that description
were amongst us. At present they enjoy all the benefit of our laws and
vote at our elections; and yet, if this doctrine were admitted, these
persons might be recalled as aliens; and if they were not recalled, they
would be considered as qualified aliens, and not as real citizens.

This law, Mr. S. said, was necessary, as at present there was not
sufficient energy in the Government to punish persons serving on board
foreign ships of war. This bill would cure the evil, and give an
opportunity for turbulent, discontented characters to leave the country
for ever. He believed it was the general opinion of the citizens of this
country that they had the right to expatriate themselves, and he thought
it was now a proper time to pass some regulations on this subject.

Mr. SITGREAVES thought this one of the most delicate and important
subjects that ever came before Congress. He saw a number of
difficulties, but he thought they were not of a nature to discourage
them from considering the bill. He trusted they should meet them with
firmness.

The evil, he said, which gave rise to this bill was a great and growing
one. In the first war which had taken place in Europe since our
independence, they found this doctrine of expatriation, as claimed by
our citizens, endangering our peace with a foreign nation, and if this
principle were admitted he feared we should always be liable to similar
embarrassments.

Mr. S. took notice of the different objections made to this section. He
observed there seemed to be much doubt on the subject, which he thought
ought to be removed by passing a law of this sort. He wished he could
agree in the opinion that no citizen had a right to expatriate himself
from this country. He thought it a doctrine essential to the peace of
society. He wished it was generally recognized; but he believed the
major opinion in this country was different; and, though not directly,
it had in a great degree been recognized by the Executive and Judiciary
in the cases of Hinfield and Talbot. He feared, therefore, it was too
late for them to say the right did not exist. It was time, however, for
Congress to declare an opinion on the subject. If the proposition in the
bill was not a proper one, it should be made so.

In the State of Virginia this doctrine was legalized, and in the
constitution of Pennsylvania it was strongly indicated, as it said
"emigration should not be prohibited." It was a favorite idea of a
republican Government not to forbid it. He did not agree with the
principles of the clause in all its parts. He thought citizens ought not
to be allowed to expatriate in time of war, as their assistance would
be wanted at home. It was his intention to have moved an amendment
allowing expatriation only in the time of peace, and an express
provision against it in time of war. He thought the doctrine of the
gentleman from Maryland, viz: that our citizens ought to go into other
countries to learn the art of war, was chimerical. When they had
obtained rank and wealth in a foreign country, it would be in vain to
call them back; they would not return. He hoped, therefore, the section
would not be struck out, but that they should proceed to amend it.

Mr. N. SMITH was sorry that the committee who reported this bill had
thought it necessary to report the sixth and seventh sections. The
doctrine of expatriation on one hand, and perpetual allegiance on the
other, were subjects they had all heard much about; but expatriation,
under limitation and restraint, was a new business. From its novelty it
became doubtful. This being the case, he wished the subject had been
deferred to an ordinary session; particularly as it appeared to be no
more connected with other parts of the bill than with many other laws
now extant. If we were to have a law on this subject, he should wish to
have it in a separate bill. For his part, he could not see how the
committee could suppose it to be a part of their duty to report these
sections. If he had thought it had, he should not have voted for
appointing a committee on the occasion.

Gentlemen advocating these clauses, say they would not allow of
expatriation in time of war. He would go further and say he would not
allow of it when there was a prospect of war, for it is idle to prohibit
it in one case and not in the other. He then asked if this was not the
very state in which we now were? If it were, why pass such a bill at
this time, when it could not go into operation? He thought this a good
reason for rejecting these clauses.

There was a mutual obligation, Mr. S. said, between a Government and all
its citizens. The Government owed protection to its citizens, and
citizens owed obedience to their Government. These duties were mutual
and co-extensive; and they might as well say that Government could
abandon its citizens when it pleased as that citizens could desert their
Government when they pleased. Yet he would allow that Government might,
on certain occasions, legalize expatriation, but not on the ground of a
citizen's having a right to expatriate when he pleased. He should have
no objection to take up the subject at a time when they could do justice
to it, but he thought the present was not that time.

The question for striking out the 6th section was put and carried, 45 to
41.

The committee accordingly rose, and the House took up the amendments.
Having come to that part for striking out the 6th and 7th sections,

Mr. DENT called for the yeas and nays, which were agreed to be taken.

Mr. VENABLE said, it seemed to be admitted that a right of expatriation
existed in our citizens; and if so, he thought there should be some mode
of exercising that right. He had no particular objection to the mode
marked out in these clauses. It had been said this was not the proper
time; but he thought it was, since it was in some degree connected with
the present bill. The gentleman from Connecticut had stated allegiance
and protection to be mutual. He did not think they were so, to the
extent which he stated. This Government was not bound to protect
citizens who went into foreign service, as in doing so they chose the
protection of another Government.

Mr. HARPER asked for an instance in which the Executive and Judiciary
had countenanced the doctrine of expatriation.

Mr. W. SMITH, in answer to his colleague, produced the case of Talbot,
and the opinion given by the Secretary of State and the Judiciary Court,
on that occasion, in favor of the right of expatriation.

Mr. GILES thought there could not be a doubt in the minds of Americans
on the subject of expatriation. Indeed, he said, this was the foundation
of our Revolution; for they were not now to be told they owed allegiance
to a foreign country. It had not only been the ground of the Revolution,
but all their acts had been predicated upon this principle. He referred
to the act respecting the rights of naturalization, which makes every
new citizen swear to support the Constitution of the United States, and
to renounce all other allegiance.

Mr. GALLATIN was opposed to these sections. With respect to
expatriation, having himself exercised the right, he could not be
supposed to be opposed to that right. Perpetual allegiance was too
absurd a doctrine to find many advocates in this country. The question
was not whether citizens had a right to expatriate, but whether they
should in this law prescribe a mode of doing it. The right seemed to
have been recognized by the Executive and Judiciary. He was against
going into this business, because he thought it unnecessary. He believed
the determination of who were citizens, and who were not, might be
safely left with the Judiciary. He had also his doubts whether the
United States had a right to regulate this matter, or whether it should
not be left to the States, as the constitution spoke of the citizens of
the States. It was a doubtful matter, and ought to undergo a full
discussion. The emigrants from this country to foreign countries were
trifling; but from ten to twelve thousand of our citizens had gone to
Canada, and upwards of five thousand beyond the Mississippi, four
thousand of whom would be got back by the running of the lines. A number
of these men hold lands in the United States; some have sold their lands
and become citizens under another Government. This subject would,
therefore, require considerable deliberation at a future day. He wished
the amendment of the Committee of the Whole to be adopted.

Mr. SITGREAVES confirmed his former statement, with respect to the
question of the right of expatriation having been settled by the
Judiciary. In order to do this, he read a note from one of the counsel
in the cases of Henfield and Talbot, giving an account of the opinions
of the court on the occasion.

Mr. SEWALL insisted upon the policy of preventing the renunciation of
allegiance, without control. The Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, he
said, had dissolved our allegiance to that country, and acknowledged our
independence.

Mr. GILES believed the evil apprehended from individuals having the
right to expatriate themselves when they pleased, was more imaginary
than real. Only two citizens had taken advantage of that right in the
State of Virginia, where it was allowed in all its extent, in twelve
years. But if there were any citizens so detached from the Government as
to wish to leave the country, he should wish them gone. To suppose this,
would be to suppose a real division between the people and Government,
which he did not believe had existence. It was said Great Britain did
not allow the doctrine of expatriation; but, he said, she had not any
naturalization law. He was in favor of excluding citizens who once
expatriated themselves from ever returning to this country.

Mr. OTIS said, that when this bill was first reported, these clauses
struck him unfavorably; but a little reflection had convinced him of the
propriety of retaining them. The passing of this provision, he said,
would not affect the constitutional right with respect to expatriation,
whatever it might be. This bill did not relate to persons emigrating
into the Spanish or English territories, but to persons expatriating
themselves, and engaging in the service of foreign countries.

The question on agreeing to the reports of the Committee of the Whole to
reject the sixth and seventh sections of the bill was taken, and
stood--yeas 34, nays 57.

All the amendments having been gone through, Mr. S. SMITH moved to
postpone the further consideration of the bill till the first Monday in
November.

This motion was supported by Messrs. VARNUM, N. SMITH, BALDWIN,
GOODRICH, and COIT, as involving a question of too delicate and
important a nature to be passed over in this hasty manner, and because
there was no pressing necessity to go into the measure at present.

It was opposed by Messrs. OTIS, WILLIAMS, W. SMITH, and CRAIK, on the
ground of the provision of the bill being necessary, and that to
postpone the business, after so ample a discussion, would be undoing
what they had been doing for two or three days.

The question for postponement was taken, and decided in the
affirmative--yeas 52, nays 44.

The bill being thus lost, Mr. W. SMITH proposed a resolution to the
House for appointing a committee to report a new bill without the two
last clauses, which, it was evident, had been the cause of the negative
given to the bill. As he supposed no opposition would be made to the
bill so reported, it might be got through without loss of time.

After some conversation on a point of order, whether or not this
resolution could be admitted, the SPEAKER declared it in order, but Mr.
COIT wishing it to lie on the table till to-morrow, it lay accordingly.


THURSDAY, June 22.

_Expatriation._

Mr. W. SMITH called up the resolution which he yesterday laid upon the
table, for appointing a committee to bring in a bill for prohibiting
citizens of the United States entering on board foreign ships of war,
without the expatriating clauses.

This resolution was opposed by Messrs. BALDWIN, GILES, and VENABLE, and
supported by the mover and Mr. HARPER. It was negatived--49 to 46.

_Depredations on Commerce._

A message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of which
the following is a copy, with the titles of the documents accompanying
it:

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

      Immediately after I had received your resolution of the
      10th of June, requesting a report respecting the
      depredations committed on the commerce of the United
      States, since the first of October, 1796, specifying the
      names of the vessels taken, where bound to or from, species
      of lading, the value, when it can be ascertained, of the
      vessel and cargo taken, and by what power captured,
      particularizing those which have been actually condemned,
      together with the proper documents to ascertain the same, I
      directed a collection to be made of all such information as
      should be found in the possession of the Government. In
      consequence of which, the Secretary of State has made the
      report and the collection of documents, which accompany
      this Message, and are now laid before the House of
      Representatives, in compliance with their desire.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _June_ 22, 1797.

Report of the Secretary of State to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
respecting the depredations committed on the commerce of the United
States:

      1. Abstract of two cases of capture made by the British
      cruisers of vessels belonging to citizens of the United
      States since the first of October, 1796, and wherein
      documents have been received at the Department of State;
      also a copy of a memorandum filed by S. SMITH, Esq.,
      relating to captures made by the British of vessels in the
      property of which he was concerned. No documents accompany
      the two cases of capture above mentioned, they having been
      sent to London, in order that compensation might be
      obtained for the damages suffered.

      2. A correct copy of the decree of the Executive Directory
      of March 2, 1797.

      3. Copies of documents remaining in the Department of
      State, relative to American vessels captured or condemned
      by the French, since the first of October, 1796.

      4. Extracts from communications from the Consuls of the
      United States, relative to depredations committed on the
      commerce of the United States by the French.

      5. Schedule of the names of American vessels captured by
      the French, and of the circumstances attending them,
      extracted from the Philadelphia Gazette, and Gazette of the
      United States, and commencing with July, 1796.

      6. Extract of a letter from Rufus King, Esq., Minister,
      &c., enclosing the protest of William Martin, master of the
      Cincinnatus, of Baltimore, relative to the torture
      inflicted on the said Martin by a French cruiser.

Mr. GILES moved that the above papers should be referred to a select
committee, to print such as would be useful to the House.

This question was negatived--50 to 46, and a motion carried for printing
the whole.

_Day of Adjournment._

Mr. GILES called up the motion which had some days ago been laid on the
table respecting an adjournment.

Mr. GALLATIN wished to modify his motion, by making the proposed day of
adjournment the 27th instead of the 24th instant.

Mr. SITGREAVES moved for the yeas and nays on the question.

Mr. MACON moved to make the day the 28th, which was consented to by the
mover.

Mr. DENT proposed to make it the 30th.

The question was taken on adjourning on the 30th, and negatived--there
being only 28 votes in favor of it.

The question on the resolution for the 28th was carried--yeas 51, nays
47.


SATURDAY, June 24.

_Protection of Trade._

NAVAL ARMAMENT.

The bill for providing for the protection of the commerce of the United
States was read a third time, and the blank for filling up the number of
men to be employed in the cutters, was filled up with thirty; on the
question being about to be put on the passing of the bill,

Mr. NICHOLAS said some statements had been received from the War
Department, and ordered to be printed. He had not seen a copy of them,
but was informed there were yet wanting $197,000 to complete the
frigates. He wished information on the subject.

Mr. PARKER read an extract from the account which had been printed.

Mr. NICHOLAS wished to know how it happened that in four months so great
a mistake could have occurred as to the expense of finishing these
vessels. When the last appropriation of $170,000 was made, they were
told that sum would be sufficient to make them fit to receive the men on
board, but now they were called upon for $197,000 more. He thought this
matter ought not to pass over without inquiry, as he did not like to be
drawn from step to step to do what, if the whole matter had been seen at
first, they might not have consented to. He trusted this was not
intentionally done, but he owned it looked very suspicious.

Mr. PARKER believed the estimate of last session was only to make the
vessels ready to receive the guns on board, and did not include the
guns.

Mr. GALLATIN said, as he meant to vote against the passage of the bill,
he would briefly state his reasons for doing so. He knew only of two
arguments in favor of the bill; the first, that it was necessary during
a time of peace to lay the foundation of a navy; the other was, that,
the frigates being built, it would be proper to man them. As to the
propriety of having a navy, he did not mean to go generally into the
subject, but he would make a few observations as to our situation for
engaging in an establishment of this kind. Suppose that navies were
necessary in European nations, to increase their power or to protect
their commerce, these considerations did not apply to our present
circumstances. In order to prove this, it was only necessary to take a
view of our revenue, and the expense of a fleet.

The amount of revenue from the 1st of April, 1796, to the 1st of April,
1797, received into the Treasury, was $7,400,000--a sum which by far
exceeded that of any former year; and he did not think that the
permanent revenue of the United States could be well extended beyond
that sum. For instance, he did not think that nine millions could be
raised from the people without oppression. Indeed, by the best
calculations on the quantity of circulating medium in the country, it
was not allowed to exceed eight millions: and he did not believe that
any nation could raise a larger sum in taxes than was equal to the
amount of their circulating specie.

      [Here Mr. Gallatin produced a detailed statement to show
      the expense of building the three frigates, to wit:
      $1,014,450, and the sum of $350,000 for the yearly expense
      of keeping them in service, repairs inclusive.]

This statement showed, Mr. G. said, that these frigates had cost about
£2,000 sterling a gun, though the common calculation in Great Britain
was only half that sum. If, from building the frigates, they turned to
the expense of manning them, the same conclusion would be drawn. They
found that the pay of an able-bodied seaman in the British navy had
lately been raised from 26s. 6d. to 30s. sterling a month, which was $6
66-2/3; but, by the present law, $15,000 a month were allowed for the
pay of the petty officers, midshipmen, seamen, ordinary seamen, and
marines, which averaged from 16 to 17 dollars a man.

When he heard gentlemen stating the advantages of the naval strength of
Denmark and Sweden to those countries, he could not agree with them
altogether, though he agreed they had some weight; but it was well known
that the Grand Navy of Portugal had no weight whatever in the scale of
the large navies of Europe; it did not even enable her to protect her
trade: for, if either France or Great Britain had the superiority in the
Mediterranean, she was under their control. He believed Denmark and
Sweden had thirty sail of the line each, and he wished gentlemen to
calculate how much it would cost us to have such a navy. A fleet of a
few vessels would not then be able to afford protection to our trade;
and it was wholly out of our power to have a fleet equal to that of
Denmark or Sweden.

Mr. SWANWICK believed the expense of these frigates had been much
greater than any future ones would be. When they were told they had cost
£2,000 sterling a gun, it was evident there must have been great
extravagance in the expense, as merchant vessels might be built as
cheaply in this country as in any other. He supposed the extra expense
had been owing to the want of some regular establishment to overlook the
business, and because it had been undertaken at a time when other
nations were at war, and of course when materials were very high.
Sixteen thousand dollars worth of hemp had indeed been burnt by accident
at Boston. As to the terms of seamen, though they might at first be
high, when the service was known he doubted not they would fall.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, he had always opposed the establishment of a navy,
and was the question now whether or not we should commence a navy he
should certainly be against it; but, as the frigates were so far
advanced, he thought they ought to finish them, especially when they
considered the present critical situation of our affairs; for, if a
general peace did not take place in Europe, the war would probably
become a maritime war, and we might be involved in it. But he was still
of opinion that if we must go into an expensive naval establishment for
the protection of our commerce, we had better have none. But, say
gentlemen, where will you find revenue? He believed, though we had no
armed force, a considerable commerce would still be carried on,[18] and
those who declined it would turn their attention to agriculture and
manufactures, from which any deficiency of revenue would readily be
supplied.

It was true, as had been stated, that they had been called upon from
time to time for additional sums to complete these frigates, and he knew
not when these calls would end.

Mr. GILES was obliged to the gentleman last up for his speech against
the present bill, though he meant to vote for it; he would rather,
however, that he had _spoken_ in favor, and _voted_ against the bill.
Mr. G. said he should vote against the passing of the bill, and for the
reasons assigned by that gentleman. He thought a navy would be a great
evil for this country. Our great interests lay in the soil; and if ever
the vitals of the country were to be drawn together for the purpose of
protecting our commerce on the sea, he should greatly lament it. He
believed the despotism of nations kept pace with the ratio of expense of
their Governments. He was sorry to say that he was more and more
convinced that it was the constant aim of some gentlemen in that House
to increase the expenses of our Government. The propriety of
establishing a navy had scarcely ever been seriously considered; it was
first begun under an alarm, and it had been continually carried on by
the same means.

Mr. HARPER said gentlemen seem to abandon their objections to this bill
by admitting that there was no probability it would not pass. But why?
Because a majority of the House either think the measure is proper in
itself, or from the particular circumstances of this country. It was
surely a singular instance of modesty in gentlemen, after this
concession, to argue against the passing of the bill.

Mr. H. did not admit that these frigates were commenced from an idea of
laying the foundation of a large Navy Establishment, but from particular
circumstances; and, said he, shall we, at a time when we are threatened
with danger, abandon them? He trusted not; such conduct would be absurd
in the extreme, and imply a character of imbecility which he hoped their
councils would never deserve.

Mr. ALLEN said, he had some objection to the passing of the bill, but
his objections were to the amendments which had been introduced into it,
yet he did not know but he should vote for it. He thought there was a
provision in the bill which went to prostrate this Government. He
alluded to that part of it which directed the manner in which this force
should be used. He considered this as a violation of the constitution,
besides carrying upon the face of it an idea that one of the branches of
this Government could not be trusted with the exercise of its power. Was
it possible, he asked, for a Government to exist, when this confidence
was refused to one of its branches? What were the people of the United
States, and abroad, to think of this? Would not the people of this
country think it their duty to destroy a power which could not be
trusted; and would not foreigners despise it? It seemed as if this were
the intention of gentlemen.

Mr. A. also objected to the clause limiting the duration of this bill;
since this went to say that they not only distrusted the other branches
of the Government, but themselves. A thing which must in its nature be
perpetual, was there limited. He deprecated the idea of expense being an
objection to this measure. Our emancipation from the chains of Great
Britain, he said, was attended with a great expense; but was it not
believed that the liberty and independence of this country were of
superior value to money? He trusted they were. He could only suppose,
therefore, that men who objected against the expense, must themselves
be sordid and avaricious. If these frigates had been provided four years
ago, he believed all our present difficulties would have been prevented,
and a sum vastly less than that of which we had been robbed would have
done the business. Mr. A. denied that ships of war could now be built in
England for £1,000 a gun; that was formerly the price, but they now cost
£1,500 per gun.

Mr. NICHOLAS had always been of opinion, that the expense of these
frigates was a useless expense; he did not believe a case could happen,
except within our own jurisdiction, where these vessels could be of
advantage to us; but notwithstanding this was his opinion, he should
vote for the passing of this bill, because he saw the sentiments of that
House and the public were strongly in its favor, from a persuasion that
the measure was necessary, and that the thing would be a continual topic
of dispute until it was carried into effect.

He was willing, therefore, to let the vessels go to sea, believing that
nothing short of actual experience would convince the supporters of this
measure that it was useless, expensive, and injurious; and hoping that
by one year's experience of the plaything, finding that money was of
greater value than the frigates, all parties would concur in
relinquishing it.

The question was then taken on the passing of the bill, and decided in
the affirmative--yeas 78, nays 25, as follows:

      YEAS--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Theophilus Bradbury,
      David Brooks, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Christopher G.
      Champlin, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana,
      James Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, George Dent,
      George Ege, Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster,
      Dwight Foster, John Fowler, Jonathan Freeman, Nathaniel
      Freeman, jr., James Gillespie, Henry Glenn, Chauncey
      Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove,
      John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison,
      Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, David Holmes, Hezekiah L.
      Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Edward
      Livingston, Samuel Lyman, Matthew Lyon, James Machir,
      William Matthews, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan, John
      Nicholas, Harrison G. Otis, Josiah Parker, Elisha R.
      Potter, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman,
      Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel
      Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith,
      of Charleston, Richard Sprigg, jr., John Swanwick, George
      Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, Abram Trigg, John
      Trigg, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg
      Wadsworth, John Williams, and Robert Williams.

      NAYS--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thomas Blount, Richard
      Brent, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Joshua
      Coit, John Dawson, Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles,
      Andrew Gregg, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter Jones, Matthew
      Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell,
      Anthony New, Tompson J. Skinner, William Smith, (of
      Pinckney District,) Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Joseph
      B. Varnum, and Abraham Venable.

The title was altered from "An act for the protection of the trade of
the United States," to "An act providing a Naval Armament."


MONDAY, June 26.

LEWIS R. MORRIS, from Vermont, and LEMUEL BENTON, from South Carolina,
appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their
seats.

_Stamp duties_: _Naturalization certificates_: _Lawyer's licenses_:
_Conveyances_.

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for laying
duties on stamped vellum, parchment, and paper; when, the first section
being under consideration,

Mr. KITTERA moved to add, "any certificates of naturalization ----
dollars," as he thought foreigners, who were admitted to all the rights
of citizens under this Government, could not be against paying a small
tax on their admission to this right.

Mr. MACON thought this tax would fall very heavy upon persons who came
into this country to live by their labor--many of whom were not able to
pay their passage, but were indented by those who brought them for a
number of years; and who, if this tax were paid, would have so much
longer to serve.

Mr. BROOKS did not see this objection, as such persons might labor all
their lives without becoming naturalized.

Mr. GORDON said, that by the naturalization act, no foreigner could be
admitted to the rights of a citizen until he had been five years in the
country, and therefore the objections of the gentleman from North
Carolina could not have any weight.

The amendment was carried.

Mr. SWANWICK moved to strike out five dollars, and insert ten, for
licenses to practise as a counsellor, attorney, &c. He thought, if these
gentlemen were taxed at all, ten dollars would be as low a sum as they
could well fix upon for the purpose.

Mr. VARNUM thought the tax should be much higher, if imposed at all. He
spoke of the high tax laid upon the professors of the law in
Massachusetts.

The amendment was carried, there being 53 in favor of it.

Mr. COCHRAN wished the tax to extend to lawyers who practised in the
State Courts, as well as to those who practised in the Courts of the
United States.

Mr. NICHOLAS objected to this proposition. The lawyers, in some of the
States, were already very highly taxed; besides, he doubted the right of
the United States to tax the lawyers of the State Courts, as they were
necessary in the State Governments.

Mr. SWANWICK did not expect any objection could have been made to a tax
so reasonable, especially when the bill proposed to tax merchants so
heavily; they would not be able to turn themselves without a stamp, and
surely the lucrative profession of the law could not think much of
paying this low tax. It was said, indeed, that the merchant did not
ultimately pay the duty, but the consumer; and he doubted not the
lawyers would not fail to find out a way of making their clients pay the
duty.

Mr. DENNIS objected to this tax on the same ground with the gentleman
from Virginia. If a tax of this kind, he said, were laid upon the
lawyers of the State Courts, it might be extended to any other officer
of the Government, and thereby annihilate the State Governments.

Mr. LIVINGSTON was in favor of the amendment, because he thought the
State lawyers a fair object of taxation. He denied that it would be
unconstitutional, or that it would operate hardly upon a particular
class of men. It was not laid upon any particular class; but upon an
instrument which, indeed, to exercise their professions, lawyers would
be obliged to have; but it might as well be said that the tax upon rum
and sugar would fall heavily upon the sellers of those articles, and
that therefore no rum or sugar would be sold. The one tax fell upon the
consumer, and the other upon the client. In the State of New York, Mr.
L. said, the lawyers were not taxed at all.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, when he seconded the motion for striking out "five"
for the purpose of inserting "ten" he did not intend the tax to be
extended to the practisers in State Courts; nor did he think the
constitution would warrant such an extension of it.

Mr. SITGREAVES was in favor of the amendment; he wished to fix the
principle. He thought that the State lawyers were a fair object of
taxation, and that the profits of their business would very well bear
it. But there was reason for making a distinction between the two cases.
He thought there would be a hardship in extending the tax to practisers
in county courts, as that would cause it to fall in some places very
heavily. For instance, in Pennsylvania, there must be a separate
admission into every court of every county; so that one man would
probably have to pay to the amount of from two to three hundred dollars
on account of this tax. He hoped the motion would be postponed for the
present, and modified. He would do it himself, if time were given.

The motion was withdrawn.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he understood that deeds for the conveyance of
lands would have been amongst the articles taxed. He thought such a tax
would be an eligible one, and in order to learn what were the objections
to it, he proposed to add to the bill, "any deed for the conveyance of
real estate ---- dollars."

Mr. R. WILLIAMS said, this proposition had been rejected in the
Committee of Ways and Means, on the ground that such a tax would clash
with the jurisdiction of the States. He had the same objection to this
that he should have to laying a tax upon the State lawyers. To say a
deed, which was legal by the laws of a State, could not be received in
evidence, except it was stamped, would be tantamount to the repealing of
a State law.

Mr. W. SMITH said, this subject had been frequently under discussion,
both in the Committee of Ways and Means, and in that House. On this
occasion, the majority of the Committee of Ways and Means was against
laying a tax on deeds. He was in the minority. There was a provision,
Mr. S. said, which declared that no paper upon which a duty was imposed
by this act should be admitted in evidence; but there was afterwards a
clause which allowed them to be admitted, on payment of ten dollars over
and above the duty thereupon payable. He thought the tax would be a very
good and a very profitable one.

Mr. COIT thought this was a tax which should be gone into with great
caution, since, if it were carried, it might be the means of losing the
whole bill. He thought the bill would be better passed without this
provision; and if it were found expedient, it might be added hereafter.

Mr. GILES was opposed to this amendment, as interfering with the
governments of the several States. All lands (except such as had been
sold by the United States) were held from the States; and if this tax
were to be agreed to, he believed the State courts would not refuse to
admit a deed in evidence which was not stamped. Nothing would give so
much alarm to the States as a subject of this sort.

Mr. SEWALL did not understand the distinction made between titles to
land and titles to money. He thought the objection made to a tax on a
deed, might be made with equal propriety to a tax on a bond or note. If
they had a right to say these should not be received in evidence in a
State court, unless they were stamped, they had a right to say the same
with respect to a deed. Except it could be shown that the farmer was
less able to pay than the merchant, he thought no other objection had
any weight.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS thought there was a great difference between a note of
hand and a deed. The State had nothing to do with the former, but much
with the latter; since every State held grants of its lands, and a man
must show his title from the original grant, before his title could be
said to be a good one. He did not doubt the people being able to pay the
tax; it was the principle which he contended against, which, if carried
into effect, would cause a clashing of the authorities of the two
Governments. If the United States could lay a tax of this sort, they
might lay a tax upon every commission issued by a State.

Mr. NICHOLAS did not see the smallest difference between the two cases
which had been stated. And when they came to the 13th section, he should
endeavor to prove that to say a piece of paper should not be received in
evidence in a court, which was lawful to be received by the laws of the
State, would be a violation of State sovereignty. He was not of
opinion, with the gentleman from Connecticut, that they should take up
the subject partially, rather than not pass the bill. He thought it best
to consider a tax upon its broadest basis. It was not fair to exclude
any thing which stood upon the same ground. He wished the principle to
be thus fairly tested. He should, therefore, vote for the tax on deeds.

Mr. LYON hoped, that if this tax was agreed to, purchases of a small
amount would be excluded.

Mr. SWANWICK said there would doubtless be a difference made in the duty
between large and small purchases. He also disagreed with the gentleman
from Connecticut. The principle, he said, was either right or not; if it
were right, it should be made general: if not, it ought not to be
adopted.

The question was put, and negatived--47 to 32.

On motion, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.


TUESDAY, June 27.

_Stamp duties._

BANK NOTES.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
laying duties on stamped vellum, parchment, and paper, when

Mr. NICHOLAS moved to strike out the clause exempting bank notes from
duty, as he could see no reason why notes upon which a profit was made,
should be exempted from duty more than others. He trusted all notes
would be placed on the same footing.

Mr. W. SMITH hoped gentlemen did not mean, by moving to strike out this
exemption, to destroy the bill. He thought the observation of the
gentleman from Connecticut yesterday, against embarrassing the bill by
doubtful objects, had weight. On this ground, though he was before of
opinion deeds ought to have been inserted, he did not vote for inserting
them. He trusted the gentleman had not fully considered the subject, and
that when he did so, he would not persist in his motion.

Mr. NICHOLAS believed if the favorite object of every gentleman were to
be exempted, there would be nothing left upon which to lay a tax. If to
oppose this, were to defeat the bill, he meant to defeat it; as he
wished the tax to go to all objects of the same kind. He had no idea of
favoring one interest at the expense of another; he hoped, therefore,
his amendment would be agreed to.

Mr. LYON expected the gentleman from South Carolina was about to have
given some reasons why bank notes ought not to be taxed as well as
others; but he was disappointed. He believed those who issued these
notes got a good profit from them, and that it was, therefore,
reasonable they should pay their proportion towards the support of
Government.

Mr. W. SMITH thought the tax an improper one. Banks were taxed in
another part of the bill, on the transfer of their shares. A tax on
bank notes, he said, would introduce a vast deal of confusion throughout
the country. As for himself he did not care any thing about it; but he
believed, if it were agreed to, it would produce so many objections
against the bill as to prevent its passing.

Mr. BROOKS was against stamping bank notes, as they were not stamped in
any country whatever.[19] Indeed they were different from other notes,
as they were the representatives of specie; they might, therefore, as
well stamp dollars or guineas. In short, the subject was too important
and intricate to be gone into at this late period of the session.

Mr. VENABLE said, in proportion as the tax was general, it would be
just. What was the object of the bill? It was to tax that right which an
individual possesses in society, of transferring his property, and the
evidences of it; it was also to tax him for the right he had of using
his credit. Though the argument of the gentleman last up might appear
specious, that a bank note was the representative of specie, it was not
very solid; it was the representative of the credit of the bank, and
circulated for its interest. An individual, if he had sufficient credit,
might issue notes as well as a corporation; and, in that case, his notes
would be charged with the duty, whilst those of a corporation would not.
From whence, said Mr. V., is this reasoning drawn? It was drawn from the
doctrine of favoritism--it was meant to favor the moneyed interest,
which was already sufficiently encouraged by their incorporation. There
seemed to be no objection to the principle; but merely to the
convenience of the thing. If it could be shown that the tax would
materially operate upon the circulation of bank notes, so as to injure
the operation of money transactions, it might have some weight with him;
but it was none, to say this bill must pass, and therefore let us avoid
any thing in which there may be any difficulty. Such assertions went
only to this, where you can tax the property of an individual, do it;
but do not meddle with corporations, as this would be attended with some
difficulty. He wished, if the bill passed, that it should operate
equally.

Mr. COIT wished the gentleman from Virginia would withdraw his motion,
until he took the sense of the committee upon one which he proposed to
make, and which was calculated, if agreed to, to supersede the one he
had made. He would state what it was. It was his opinion that small
notes should be exempted from duty. He should propose, therefore, that
there should be charged on all notes exceeding fifty dollars and not
exceeding one hundred dollars, ten cents, and that all of less value
should go free.

After a few remarks upon this motion, in which it was observed that it
would defeat the bill entirely, as it would only be to make so many
more notes at fifty dollars, if the sum were larger, Mr. Coit consented
that the fifty should be struck out and left blank; when the question
was taken and negatived, there being only twenty-five votes for it.

Mr. NICHOLAS renewed his motion.

Mr. SITGREAVES hoped it would not prevail. It had been admitted that if
it could be proved that the stamping of bank notes would embarrass their
circulation, it would be a good objection to the tax. He believed he
could easily show that it would not only impede their circulation, but
depreciate their value. The tax would not certainly be made to operate
upon notes already issued, but upon those issued after the act took
place; so that it would be necessary that every citizen throughout the
United States should be acquainted with the date of their law, which
would do away all confidence in bank paper. The result of this
uncertainty would be that the banks would have to call in all their
outstanding notes, which would cause an immediate depreciation of their
value. He trusted, therefore, that so objectionable a measure would not
be entered upon.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he had had his doubts with respect to the propriety
of stamping bank notes; he was not sure whether it might not have a
dangerous effect on their circulation. On a further consideration of the
subject, however, all his doubts had vanished. He now thought this
amendment essential, just, and right. Indeed, when they proposed to lay
a stamp duty upon all bills and notes, there appeared to be no good
reason why the notes of any incorporation whatever should be excepted.
He had heard only one objection; which was, that these notes differed
essentially from others, because they were the real representatives of
specie kept in the bank from whence they were issued. He could not see
the distinction endeavored to be drawn. Private notes were always given
for some consideration, whether for cash or other property, was of no
consequence to them. Indeed, if they turned their attention to the
nature of bank notes, they would be found to be a very fair object of
taxation.

Where an individual gave his note, it was not likely that he would
derive any profit from it; many of such notes were what was called
"accommodation notes;" all were acknowledgments of debt, and therefore
no proofs of wealth; but bank notes were never issued except to produce
a profit to the bank; therefore, to exempt them from duty, would be to
exempt those which were best entitled to pay.

The only objection would be, any inconvenience which might take place to
counterbalance the benefit to be derived from the tax. It had been
supposed that a depreciation would take place in the value of the notes
in consequence of this tax. In order to show that this was not probable,
he supposed the tax would be laid.

Bank notes were issued and re-issued; but when an individual gave a
note, after it was paid, there was an end of it. Bank notes might be
issued twenty-times, or oftener; it was necessary, therefore, to tax
them in a different way from other notes. He supposed the same provision
might be adopted here as was adopted in England. They might be allowed
to be issued for a certain number of years--say three. This would remedy
every kind of inconvenience arising from reissuing. As to notes now in
circulation, the way to prevent inconvenience would be to fix the time
after which all notes should be renewed by stamped notes. The
consequence would be, that all notes would, by degrees, be returned to
the bank, and no difficulty would arise from doing so. Six or nine
months might be allowed for this purpose. This was the way in which all
the banks in England, except the Bank of England, were subject to the
stamp duty; that bank, he believed, had paid a certain sum to be excused
from the tax. Perhaps the same privilege might be allowed here.

Mr. NICHOLAS noticed what had fallen from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania on the subject of depreciation, and showed by the
regulations under which the tax would be paid, that it could not take
place.

Mr. RUTLEDGE thought bank notes a proper object of taxation, and had not
heard one good reason why they should be exempted from the proposed
duty. The arguments of his colleague (Mr. SMITH,) that bank notes now in
circulation would be affected, and their currency checked, he would
answer, by observing that the duty could not operate upon notes now in
circulation; it was not proposed to have them called in, but to have
those stamped which shall be issued after a certain day. He did not
think the weight and importance which generally attach to the
observations of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SITGREAVES) attach
to those now offered by him. With respect to the circulation of bank
notes being embarrassed by the necessity there would be for the people
at large being acquainted with the date of the law, the objection would
apply to private as well as bank notes. The people throughout the
country must inform themselves, and the most ignorant will inform
themselves of the date of the act; and whenever a bank note or a private
note shall be offered to them, they will always inquire if it was issued
subsequent or previous to a certain day. The gentleman from New York
(Mr. BROOKS) was certainly incorrect in saying that "bank paper was not
stamped in any country whatever." In Great Britain, Mr. R. said, the
paper of all private banks is stamped; that of the Bank of England has
been exempted from the stamp duty, by the bank having paid the
Government a sum, in gross, by way of commutation. Although the moneyed
interest has always been well and largely represented in England, yet
bank notes are taxed there, and the circulation of them has not been
embarrassed by this duty; on the contrary, the system of banking has
been wonderfully extended throughout that kingdom. In every part of it
bank notes are current; every town and village has its banks; they are
as universal as their churches. Mr. R. asked, where would be the
propriety of taxing notes issued by fifty individuals in their
individual capacity, and exempting those issued by them when they
associated, called themselves a Banking Company, and issued notes to
three times the amount of their capital? The measure seemed to him
unwise, and he was sure it would be unpopular. He could not conceive why
people who had no other property than stock, which, in many instances,
yielded an interest of fifteen per cent., should not contribute to the
support of Government.

Mr. SWANWICK.--The greatest objection which the banks in England seemed
to have to the tax, was, that it might ascertain the quantity of notes
they had in circulation. In order to prevent this, the Bank of England
commuted with Government for a certain sum; but the notes of all the
private banks were stamped. He thought it reasonable that this kind of
notes should be stamped as well as others, though he would have the tax
low; for he saw no reason why merchants should pay, and bankers be
excused from the duty, since great emolument was derived from these
notes, by the consent of the community, and the community, in return,
had a right to expect assistance from the banks.

Mr. W. SMITH believed, if an original proposition had been brought
forward to tax bank notes, it would have been thought a very serious
thing, and they should have paused before they consented to the
proposition. Gentlemen who advocated this proposition, allowed it would
require many provisions to carry it into effect. What those provisions
were he could not pretend to say. He thought bank notes had been too
much confounded with notes of individuals, and they were quite different
things. Those of individuals were mostly larger, the greatest part of
bank notes were for five dollars. Notes of individuals, if not stamped,
could not be received in evidence; but he did not know what must be the
penalty on bank notes being issued without stamp. Besides, he said, to
lay a duty upon the notes issued by the Bank of the United States would
be a violation of its charter, for, by that charter, it was said, the
notes of that bank should be received at the custom-house in payment of
duties. It had been said a commutation might be allowed, but that would
be equally contrary to the charter; besides, if such a thing were to be
done, he did not know who could do it; it would not be the proper
business of the PRESIDENT, and that House would have difficulty in
saying what would be a proper sum to be paid for the purpose. He again
feared the introduction of this principle would destroy the bill.

Mr. COIT did not think it was quite so clear a thing as some gentlemen
seemed to think it, that bank notes ought to be stamped. He did not
believe the analogy between the bank and private notes was so strong as
had been represented. If the facts were as represented, that every bank
note was to be considered as producing a profit to the banker, there
would be good ground for the tax; but he was of opinion this was not the
case. For instance, if the bank gave their note for one hundred dollars,
it was equal evidence with the note of an individual, that they had
received the value of one hundred dollars. But if they went further, it
would be found the analogy did not hold. The note of the individual was
at a certain date, but that of the banker was on demand; and they were
every day liable to be called upon for the money of which the note was
the representative; so that they were obliged to keep the money, or
money at least to a great amount, ready to take up their notes whenever
presented. Banks could not, therefore, be considered as receiving a
profit on all the notes they issued; but only upon the difference
between the amount of notes issued, and the cash they are obliged to
keep by them to answer their demands. The analogy, therefore, did not
hold; and, if bank notes were taxed, it must be upon a different
principle from that on which the notes of individuals are taxed.

Mr. POTTER was in favor of the amendment, and he trusted that gentlemen
who were always ready to go into every species of expense, would not
flinch when the object was to raise money. He had this morning voted for
a bill laying additional tax on licenses, which he believed would be
found in some degree oppressive, but he did it because he knew revenue
was wanted. He hoped the gentleman from South Carolina would, on this
occasion, concur in the proposed tax. He doubted not unexceptionable
means might be devised for collecting it; if not, it might be given up.

Mr. HARPER was against the amendment, not because he was satisfied bank
notes were not a proper object of taxation, but because he did not wish
to embarrass the bill with a subject which they had not time to
consider.

Mr. SWANWICK again spoke in favor of the tax.

Mr. OTIS was against the amendment; not because he thought such a tax
would be improper, but from the difficulties which would attend the
carrying it into effect. Besides, he said, if the notes were to revert
to the bank every two or three years, it would cause a run upon them for
cash, instead of renewed notes, which might be very inconvenient.

Mr. VENABLE did not think the run upon the bank which the gentleman had
mentioned could take place, as the notes would have to be renewed three
years from the time issued, and all their notes would not be issued on
one day. Mr. V. again insisted that this tax should be general; and if
they had not time to make it so, it ought to be put off till they had.
Not to include bankers would be to lay a tax upon the people whose
complaints of its hardships could not be heard. He deprecated this as
unjust.

Mr. HARPER could not conceive that the great body of merchants and
farmers throughout the United States were people who could not make
their complaints heard, if they had them to make. The proprietors of
banks, Mr. H. said, already paid taxes in a variety of shapes; many of
them were merchants, and would, of course, pay the tax imposed on the
notes of individuals.

Mr. BROOKS was against going into a tax on bank notes at present, but
denied that there would be any cause of complaint from the people on
account of the taxes imposed by this bill. He wished to make a beginning
with a stamp tax at present; it might not be completed these seven
years. Gentlemen might as well go on and propose a tax on newspapers,
which, whatever might be said against it, he believed might be laid
without infringing the liberty of the press; but a thing of this kind
would require a great deal of detail.

Mr. CLAIBORNE was in favor of including bank notes; not to do this, he
said, would be to catch _small fish_, and let the _large ones_ pass.

Mr. GALLATIN said that the provisions for laying this tax would be by no
means difficult. Indeed, three-fourths of the bill was copied from the
British statute, and that part respecting bank notes could be as easy
copied as any other part. The observations respecting the charter of the
Bank of the United States, were not deserving of a reply. There was only
one of two things which could be done, either to tax bank notes, or to
excuse all other notes from the tax.

Mr. SITGREAVES could not submit to hear that it was the intention of
those who opposed this motion, to screen the moneyed interest of this
country from paying a tax. He had no such views. He had no objection to
tax the banks in proportion to the amount of their business; but he
could not agree to its being done in this way. If gentlemen would
estimate how much the stamp duty of a bank would produce to the United
States, he would vote for a sum of this kind by way of commutation.
Charges could rarely be made against the side of the House with whom he
generally acted, for not being willing to vote for revenue; a contrary
charge was more frequently made. He trusted the amendment would not be
agreed to; but that if the tax were laid, it would be by way of
commutation.

The question was taken and carried, there being 55 votes in favor of it.

The committee rose and had leave to sit again.

The resolution respecting an adjournment was received from the Senate,
and disagreed to. The disagreement being read, Mr. GILES moved the same
resolution filled with Monday next; but Mr. WILLIAMS opposed it, and
moved to adjourn.


THURSDAY, June 29.

_Stamp Duties._

BANK NOTES.

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for imposing
stamp duties, when the clause of Mr. GALLATIN yesterday proposed to the
committee, on the subject of bank notes, being under consideration,

Mr. OTIS supposed that at least two-thirds of the whole amount of paper
issued by the banks, returned and were re-issued every year, and thus
the banks must pay tax upon two-thirds of their capital in the first
year after the law passed, and which, according to a rough calculation,
relation being had to the different denominations of notes, amount to
nearly one per cent. on their capital. The tax ought to be levied upon
such new notes only as should be issued hereafter; all that were now in
existence were protected by the charter, and any law relating to them
would be retrospective; and as one-fifth of the whole number of notes
would be renewed every year, a tax upon them would be found to bear as
hard as upon other notes and bills, which seldom comprised more than the
fifth part of the transactions of an individual. It ought also to be
considered, that the paper issued by the bank generally became worn and
dirty, and incapable of receiving a stamp, so that in less than two
years the whole amount of paper must be re-issued, and the entire tax
assessed in the same period. This plan would also be inconsistent with
that of a commutation, which had been proposed.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) did not think that this proposition precluded
the provision of a commutation. He was in favor of taxing bank notes,
but he wished also to hold out a commutation, and such a one as should
induce all the banks to embrace it; for, if this were not the case, they
would not be taxed equally, as the notes of banks did not bear a just
proportion to the amount of their dividends. This clause would not,
therefore, preclude the commutation, but render it proper, and a clause
could be brought in excusing such banks from the duty as came into the
proposed plan.

Mr. GALLATIN said, his ideas corresponded exactly with those of the
gentleman who had just spoken. The scheme suggested by the gentleman
from Massachusetts, of not taxing the notes at present in circulation,
would excuse bank notes from all tax, as, according to his own account,
only about one-fifth of the notes issued came in in the course of a
year, so that it would be five years before a new tax could operate upon
all their notes, and it was probable the bill might not pass for more
than three or four. That gentleman supposed that bankers' notes ought
not to be charged more than others; if this were the case, they might be
reckoned to run for four or five years, while those of individuals were
at six and twelve months. The note of an individual, for fifty dollars,
was to pay ten cents; he calculated a bank note, therefore, for a like
sum, which he supposed, upon an average, to run four years, thirty
cents.

With respect to the notes at present in circulation, Mr. G. said, they
ought all to be called in before a certain time, and after that day no
note should be negotiable which was not stamped.

The gentleman from Massachusetts was not correct when he said that this
tax would amount to one per cent. upon the capital employed in banks.
The calculation of the amount of the tax upon a bank which he had made,
would amount to $10,000 a year, whereas one per cent. upon the capital
of the Bank of the United States would amount to $200,000; but he said
(as he had before stated) that the notes issued by a bank were not equal
to its capital, or any thing like it. He could not, indeed, say what the
amount of the notes of the Bank of the United States might be which were
received for duty, from one end of the United States to the other; but
he knew banks in general, in large cities, did not employ more than
two-fifths of their capital in this way. He knew it to be a fact with
respect to a bank of the largest property in the United States, except
the Bank of the United States. He thought of proposing the commutation
to be one per cent. upon the amount of the dividend paid by each bank,
which he supposed would be deemed a reasonable sum.

Mr. OTIS explained.

Mr. SEWALL thought the observation of the gentleman from Connecticut
yesterday, as to the nature of bank notes, had weight. He agreed with
him that they were very different from the notes of individuals, as they
were always obliged to keep cash in readiness to take up their notes,
while individuals, knowing exactly the time when the money for theirs
would be wanted, could make use of it in the mean time. Therefore, if
they taxed bank notes, they ought not to tax them in the same proportion
with those of individuals at a certain date. Notes of individuals, under
twenty dollars, were to be exempt from duty, while every note issued by
a bank was proposed to be taxed.

Every banker's note of fifty dollars was to be charged with thirty
cents, while those of individuals, which might run for two or three
years, were charged only with ten cents. Every three or four years they
would have to pay this sum. If a fair commutation were to be made, they
should first fix the tax upon just principles.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought if there was no objection to the commutation, there
could not reasonably be any made to the tax, because if the commutation
were reasonable they would not choose to pay the tax; but, if they
should choose to pay the tax, instead of the commutation, it would be
evidence that the tax was too low.

Mr. W. SMITH did not see the force of the argument of the gentleman last
up. As the commutation was to bear some proportion to the rates of
duty, it became necessary to fix the rates upon a fair basis. If the
rates were fixed too high, they ought to reduce them. He did not see the
propriety of selecting moneyed corporations for the purpose of laying a
high duty upon them. He moved to strike out the three cents for every
five dollars, and leave it a blank.

Mr. DAYTON hoped this proposition would be agreed to, as by a vote upon
the question in blank they would fix the principle whether or not bank
notes were to be taxed, and the scale could be afterwards fixed. If
there was the difference alleged between bank notes and the notes of
individuals, it would be sufficiently considered in the commutation. He
should not, indeed, be willing to agree to any scale without a
commutation, for the reason he had before mentioned. For, said he, take
the Bank of the United States and the Bank of North America, and the
notes issued by them bear no sort of proportion to their respective
capitals. If the tax were to be laid upon the notes issued, the Bank of
the United States would pay a much larger sum than the other in duty.

Mr. GALLATIN observed that the gentleman from South Carolina had said
they were about to select moneyed corporations as objects on which to
lay a high duty. He had made a calculation to show that this was not the
case, but that what was proposed was no more than just and reasonable,
and that instead of the tax being one per cent. upon their capital, it
was not more than one twentieth or one twenty-fifth part of one per
cent.

He would state the facts, and beg gentlemen to correct him where he was
mistaken. In the first place he would state the capital of all the banks
of the United States at $20,000,000; the whole amount of bank notes at
less than $8,000,000. He would divide these $8,000,000, one-half into
notes under fifty dollars, and one-half above that sum as follows:

$4,000,000 in notes under fifty dollars,
  which would give about
  eighty thousand notes, (for though
  they would be of different sizes
  they paid in the same proportion,)
  at thirty cents,                         $24,000
$2,000,000 of one hundred dollars
  and upwards, at fifty cents,              10,000
$2,000,000 of three hundred dollars
  and upwards,                               4,000
                                           -------
                                           $38,000
Allow for mistakes,                          2,000
                                           -------
Which includes all the notes in circulation
  in the United States,                    $40,000

As to the principle of taxation itself, that bank notes of fifty dollars
should pay thirty cents when notes of individuals only pay ten cents,
justice requires the difference, on the same principle that notes of
sixty days had been charged with only two-fifths of the duty charged
upon others.

Mr. G. stated the following account of a bank in Philadelphia, whose
capital was $2,000,000, and to which Government owed nothing; which, he
said, would apply to every other bank in the same circumstances, with
little variation:

To the original fund,    $2,000,000
To deposits, about          900,000
To bank notes,              600,000
                         ----------
Total debts,             $3,500,000
                         ----------
By notes discounted,     $3,000,000[20]
By cash in vault,        500,000
                         ----------
Total credits,           $3,500,000
                         ----------

As banks were thus able to transact business to the amount of three
millions of dollars, though their original fund was only two millions,
he accounted for their sharing dividends of nine per cent. on their
stock. It would be observed that the two millions capital were not
touched for notes, and yet they were charged with selecting these bodies
of men upon whom to lay a heavy tax.

Mr. G. concluded by saying he had no prejudice against banks. He knew
they were liable to abuse, but, upon the whole, he believed them to be
useful. He believed the scale he had formed was correct, but should
withdraw it for the present, in order to give an opportunity of trying
the principle.


FRIDAY, June 30.

_Duties on Stamps._

The proposition of Mr. GALLATIN for admitting of a composition from the
banks in lieu of the tax, came next under consideration--the blank in
which was moved to be filled with one per cent.; when

Mr. W. SMITH said, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania was right in his
calculation yesterday, the whole amount of duties arising from the banks
would be $8,000 a year, and therefore they ought not to go farther in
fixing the composition, whereas one per cent., according to the same
statement, will produce more than double that sum; for, if the whole
capital of the banks in the United States be twenty millions, and their
average dividend ten per cent., that will produce two millions, which at
one per cent. will give $20,000. He therefore moved, in order to bring
the matter nearer to a fair equivalent, to strike out one per cent. and
insert one-half per cent.

Mr. NICHOLAS said what the duty would produce was uncertain; they could
with more correctness say, that one per cent. was a reasonable
composition on the dividends, than what might be produced by the duty.
He knew of no tax laid upon property that could be made for less than
five per cent. to clear the expense of making it.

Mr. W. SMITH thought they should first fix the rates to be paid on bank
notes before they determined upon the composition.

Mr. GALLATIN said, when the rates were before under consideration, the
gentleman from South Carolina objected to it, because, if fixed too
high, he said it would influence the composition. He therefore moved to
have it struck out; but now, when a composition was under consideration,
he turns round and says it would be better first to fix the rates. He
thought one per cent. a reasonable composition, and that it would be
best first to fix that.

Mr. SMITH denied that he wanted first to fix the composition; it was his
wish to strike out the rates, to reduce them, that he moved to leave the
sum blank.

The question was put and carried, there being 54 votes in favor of it.

Mr. GALLATIN then renewed his motion for fixing the scale of duty to be
paid on bank notes. It was, on notes not exceeding fifty dollars, three
cents for every five dollars; those not exceeding one hundred dollars,
fifty cents; those above one hundred dollars, and not exceeding five
hundred dollars, one dollar; for all above five hundred dollars, two
dollars.

Mr. DAYTON said there were many notes under five dollars, for which
there was no provision.

Mr. GALLATIN thought "the rate of" would have included the small ones;
and, to dissipate every doubt on the subject, he moved to replace "three
cents for every five dollars," with "three-fifths of a cent for every
dollar."

Carried, 39 to 24.[21]


MONDAY, July 3.

The bill for laying a stamp duty was read a third time, and the blanks
filled up, viz: that for fixing the time of the act taking effect, with
the 31st day of December next; the fine and imprisonment for
counterfeiting stamps, &c., with $1,000 and seven years' imprisonment;
and the time for which the duration of the act was limited, with five
years.

The yeas and nays being taken on the passage of the bill, were--yeas 47,
nays 41, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, James
      Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James
      Davenport, John Dennis, Geo. Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel
      Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, James Gillespie,
      Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger
      Griswold, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas
      Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Samuel Lyman,
      James Machir, William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R.
      Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John Read, John
      Rutledge, jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William
      Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah
      Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith, (of Charleston,)
      George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, John E. Van
      Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

      NAYS.--George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
      Lemuel Benton, Thos. Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges,
      Samuel J. Cabell, Christopher G. Champlin, Thomas
      Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis,
      John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert
      Gallatin, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Walter Jones,
      Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel
      Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge,
      Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Thompson J.
      Skinner, William Smith, (of Pinckney District,) Richard
      Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg,
      John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham
      Venable, and Robert Williams.


TUESDAY, July 4.

_Duty on Salt._

Mr. ALLEN called up the resolution he yesterday laid upon the table, for
laying an additional duty on salt.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to postpone the consideration of this resolution
until the second Monday in November.

Some debate took place on this question; and, when it came to be taken,
the House was equally divided, there being 43 votes for the
postponement, and 43 against it. The SPEAKER decided against the
postponement, and the resolution was referred to a Committee of the
Whole immediately.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
this resolution; when

Mr. ALLEN moved the blank cents per bushel be filled with twelve.

Mr. SWANWICK wished the sum to be seven.

Mr. ALLEN consented to make it eight.

Mr. SITGREAVES hoped it would be twelve.

The question was first taken upon twelve, and negatived, there being
only 30 votes for it. It was next taken upon eight, and carried, 47 to
42, and then upon the resolution as amended, and carried by the same
numbers.

The committee rose, and the House took up the resolution.

After a few words from Mr. LYON against the tax, and from Mr. WILLIAMS
in favor of it,

Mr. W. SMITH went at considerable length into a defence of the measure,
in the course of which, he said, they had already agreed upon
appropriations to the amount of $700,000 or $800,000, and were not
certain of any revenue to meet the expenditure. The license act, he
believed, might produce from $50,000 to $60,000, and the stamp act from
$100,000 to $150,000, if they should be passed; but he considered this
as doubtful. But if these laws were passed, this tax on salt was
necessary to keep up the equilibrium of taxation;[22] for the stamp act
would almost exclusively fall upon commerce and large cities; this would
principally be felt by the agricultural part of the Union; and, if it
were not agreed to, they must have a land tax.

Mr. SHEPARD said, no tax would operate so equally as a salt tax, as
every citizen must make use of it in a smaller or larger quantity.

Mr. GALLATIN opposed this tax on the same ground which he heretofore
opposed it, as oppressive to certain parts of the Union, and no way
affecting others, and therefore wholly unequal, and particularly as it
bore heavy on the poorer classes of society. He was against it also,
because it was not proposed that the amount of this tax should go
towards a reduction of the public debt, but merely to encourage expense
in the Government; for he believed if they filled the Treasury with
money, means would be found to expend it. Indeed, if the Treasury had
not been at present in rather a low state, he believed they should have
gone into most of the expensive measures proposed to them this session.
He allowed the tax would be productive, as a tax upon bread, air, or any
necessary of life, must be productive. If this tax, however, were to be
agreed to, he should wish to make an amendment to the present
proposition. At present the drawback allowed to the New England States,
on account of salt used in the fisheries, amounted to about $90,000 a
year, though by the statements it appeared there should only have been
allowed $50,000. To rectify this, he proposed the following proviso to
be added to the resolution, viz:

      _Provided_, That the allowance now given upon vessels
      employed in the fisheries, shall not be increased.

This amendment was opposed by Messrs. HARPER, SEWALL, DANA, and KITTERA,
on the ground of its being an unfair way of introducing the proposition,
as no one expected it; they were not prepared to meet it; the
correctness of the statement was doubted; and, if it were correct, it
was said, the proper way of doing the business would not be to pass the
present law without a drawback, but to reduce the former drawback and
make it less on this occasion.

The motion was supported by the mover, and Messrs. VENABLE and
LIVINGSTON; but, after some discussion, Mr. GALLATIN withdrew it, in
order to give gentlemen time to make themselves acquainted with the fact
he had stated; but he expressed his intention of renewing the
proposition when the bill came in.

The question then returned upon the original resolution; when

Mr. HARPER went at length into a defence of the measure, (in the course
of which he charged Mr. GALLATIN with being mistaken $12,000 as to the
amount of the drawback allowed,) and insisted that it was a fair and
proper tax, and that so small an advance upon the present duty could not
operate oppressively upon any part of the community.

Mr. NICHOLAS followed in opposition. He dwelt considerably on the unjust
and unequal manner in which this tax would operate. He said he did not
view this question as deciding merely whether an additional tax of eight
cents should be laid upon salt; but whether that necessary of life
should be called upon for every thing Government should want. He was in
favor of a direct tax, which should fall equally, though it might, in
the origin, be attended with some considerable expense; but, if they
went on raising partial sums in this way by indirect means, the expense
of instituting a direct tax would always be an obstacle, and indirect
taxes would always be had recourse to. He did not believe it to be
absolutely necessary to provide a revenue this session, as he believed
money might as well be borrowed without as with additional revenue, and
at the next session, the subject could be fully gone into.

Mr. LYON spoke of the discontent which had always been shown in the part
of the country from whence he came, which, he said, would be greatly
increased by this addition. It was not only a duty of eight cents, every
cent would be made four before the salt reached them. There was no kind
of tax which his constituents would not sooner bear. It had been said
that a land tax would cost twenty-five per cent. to collect it; but what
was twenty-five compared with three hundred per cent.? Nor did he
believe this tax would prevent a land tax. He believed they should go on
taxing the people until they would be greatly dissatisfied. He would
much rather a tax of eight cents was laid upon tea, which would produce
an equal sum.

The question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the
affirmative--47 to 41.


WEDNESDAY, July 5.

_Duty on Salt._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for laying an
additional duty on salt; when

Mr. GALLATIN moved to strike out all that related to the allowing of a
drawback to vessels employed in the fishing trade, on the ground that he
yesterday stated, viz: that the allowance at present made was too large
by $40,000 a year, taking the year 1794 for his data; but it appeared
that in the year 1795 there was a deficiency in that trade, owing
principally, it was supposed, to the great demand for seamen in the
merchant service. He, therefore, would take the calculation of the
gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. HARPER,) made yesterday, and,
instead of calling the amount of drawback allowed $90,000, he would
state it to be $78,000; and even then, he said, the drawback at present
allowed would exceed by two thousand dollars the drawback to which they
would be entitled, if the present duty took place.

He spoke generally against the tax as oppressive to the back country;
but if the gentleman from Massachusetts, and others, were determined to
increase the tax, he should wish their part of the country to pay their
share of it.

This motion was supported by Messrs. VENABLE, NICHOLAS, CLAY, MCDOWELL,
and MACON.

It was opposed by Messrs. SEWALL, OTIS, HARPER, COIT, BROOKS, KITTERA,
J. WILLIAMS, and DAYTON.

The calculation of the quantity of salt estimated to be necessary to be
used for a quintal of fish, (one bushel,) was said to be stated too low;
that the sum allowed was not only meant as a drawback of the duty, but
also as a bounty on the fishing trade--as being a nursery for seamen,
and serving as a kind of naval militia for the United States.

If it should appear, however, that the present allowance was too great,
(which, by some gentlemen in favor of this motion, which was in blank,
seemed to be acknowledged,) a less allowance might be made in this bill;
but they could not consent to the bill passing without a drawback.

The question for striking out the clause was taken, and negatived--49 to
41.

Mr. COIT moved to fill the blank with 50 per cent., instead of 66-2/3,
which was the drawback allowed by the present law.

Mr. HARTLEY thought this sum too high.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved 33-1/3 per cent. which was carried without a
division.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved a limitation clause, to continue the act in force for
two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress.

This motion was carried--42 to 39.

The committee rose, and the House agreed to the amendments. The yeas and
nays were called upon the limitation clause, and were taken, and
stood--yeas 47, nays 43.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading this day; and
before the House rose, it received it, and passed. The yeas and nays on
its passage stood 45 to 40, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen
      Bullock, John Chapman, Christopher G. Champlin, Joshua
      Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James Davenport, John
      Dennis, George Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight
      Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich,
      Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, William Hindman,
      Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera,
      Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison
      G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John Read, John Rutledge, jun.,
      James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas
      Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel
      Smith, William Smith, (of Charleston,) John Swanwick,
      George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, John E. Van Allen, 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, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
      Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, John
      Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Wm. B. Grove,
      John A. Hanna, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Walter
      Jones, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair
      McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan,
      Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, William
      Smith, (of Pinckney District,) Richard Sprigg, jun.,
      Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
      Joseph B. Varnum, and Robert Williams.


SATURDAY, July 8.

_Laws in the German Language._

Mr. HOLMES said that he thought it necessary, in order to enforce a
general compliance with the laws of the United States, that they should
be printed in the German language, as well as in the English, since
there were very many inhabitants in this country who could read no
other. He therefore proposed a resolution to the following effect:

      "_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States_, That a number of copies of the laws of
      this session, not exceeding eight thousand copies, shall be
      printed in the German language, and distributed by the
      Secretary of State amongst the Executives of the several
      States, for the information of the German inhabitants of
      each State respectively."

Mr. LYON thought it would be proper to pass a resolution of this kind.
He did not know what number might be necessary. He also thought that
some measures should be taken for a general publication of their laws in
the English language; at present, it was merely by chance if the people
in his district came to a knowledge of them. He thought all laws of
general import should be inserted in every newspaper throughout the
Union.

Mr. COIT said if they were to promulge their laws in the German
language, it would be necessary that they should all become critically
acquainted with it, for if they were to authorize any translation, great
mischiefs might arise from its not being correct.

Mr. GALLATIN said that the weight of the objection urged by the
gentleman last up, had always been thought sufficient in the
Legislature of Pennsylvania, in which State there was a greater
proportion of Germans than in any other. There was also another
objection to the measure. If it were to be passed, it must be
accompanied with an appropriation law, which the advanced state of the
session would not admit.

The resolution was put and negatived.


MONDAY, July 10.

On motion of Mr. DENT, a committee was appointed to wait upon the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in conjunction with a like committee
from the Senate, to inform him the two Houses were about to adjourn. The
committee waited upon the PRESIDENT accordingly, and reported his
acquiescence, and his good wishes for the safe arrival of the members at
their several homes.

On motion of Mr. SITGREAVES, the resolution entered into some time ago,
calling upon the PRESIDENT for an account of the quantity of arms in the
possession of the United States, and at what place they were lodged, was
suspended.

Mr. S. said, he wished to make a report upon a subject which would
require the galleries to be cleared. He, therefore, moved that they be
cleared, and the doors were closed for the remainder of the sitting, at
the conclusion of which the House adjourned till the second Monday in
November next.[23]




FIFTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, NOVEMBER 13, 1797.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, November 13, 1797.

The second session of the fifth Congress of the United States commenced
this day, at the city of Philadelphia, conformably to law; and the
Senate assembled accordingly in their Chamber.

PRESENT:

SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire.
THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island.
URIAH TRACY, from Connecticut.
ELIJAH PAINE, from Vermont.
WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania.
HUMPHREY MARSHALL, from Kentucky.
ALEXANDER MARTIN and TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from North Carolina.
JACOB READ, from South Carolina.

The number of members present not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, the Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.


TUESDAY, November 14.

JOHN LAURANCE, from the State of New York, and HENRY LATIMER, from the
State of Delaware, severally attended.

The number of members present not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, the Senate adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, November 15.

BENJAMIN GOODHUE, from the State of Massachusetts, attended.

The number of members present not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, the Senate adjourned.


THURSDAY, November 16.

The Senate assembled, and the number of members present not being
sufficient to constitute a quorum, the Senate adjourned.


FRIDAY, November 17.

JOHN LANGDON, from the State of New Hampshire, attended.

The number of members present not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, the Senate adjourned.


SATURDAY, November 18.

No quorum being present, the Senate adjourned.


MONDAY, November 20.

JAMES GUNN, from the State of Georgia, attended.

No quorum being present, adjourned.


TUESDAY, November 21.

RAY GREENE, appointed a Senator by the State of Rhode Island, in the
place of WILLIAM BRADFORD, resigned, produced his credentials.

RICHARD STOCKTON, from the State of New Jersey, attended.

No quorum being present, the Senate adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, November 22.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the choice of a
President _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides; and JACOB READ
was duly elected.

JOSEPH ANDERSON, appointed a Senator by the State of Tennessee, for the
remainder of the term which the late Senator WILLIAM BLOUNT had drawn,
and was entitled to have served, produced his credentials; which were
read.

NATHANIEL CHIPMAN, appointed a Senator by the State of Vermont, in the
place of ISAAC TICHENOR, elected Governor, produced his credentials;
which were read.

The credentials of RAY GREENE were read.

ANDREW JACKSON, appointed a Senator by the State of Tennessee, produced
his credentials; which were read.

The oath required by law was administered by the PRESIDENT, to Messrs.
ANDERSON, CHIPMAN, GREENE, and JACKSON, they having severally taken
their seats in the Senate.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that a
quorum of the House is assembled, and ready to proceed to business.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that
a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and are ready to proceed to
business; and that, in the absence of the VICE-PRESIDENT, they have
elected JACOB READ, President of the Senate _pro tempore_.

_Resolved_, That each Senator be supplied, during the present session,
with copies of three such newspapers, printed in any of the States, as
he may choose, provided that the same are furnished at the rate of the
usual annual charge for such papers.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that
the House have appointed a joint committee on their part, together with
such committee as the Senate may 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 that he may be
pleased to make to them.

_Resolved_, That the Senate do concur in the appointment of a joint
committee, and that Messrs. BINGHAM and TRACY be the committee on the
part of the Senate.

_Resolved_, That two Chaplains be appointed to Congress for the present
session, one by each House, who shall interchange weekly; and that the
Right Rev. Bishop WHITE be Chaplain on the part of the Senate.

Mr. BINGHAM reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and had notified him that a quorum
of the two Houses is assembled; and that 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.


THURSDAY, November 23.

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
please to make them.

The Senate then repaired to the Chamber of the House of Representatives
for the purpose above expressed.

The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and a copy of the Speech of
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, this day addressed to both Houses of
Congress, was read:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      I was for some time apprehensive that it would be
      necessary, on account of the contagious sickness which
      afflicted the city of Philadelphia, to convene the National
      Legislature at some other place. This measure it was
      desirable to avoid, because it would occasion much public
      inconvenience, and a considerable public expense, and add
      to the calamities of the inhabitants of this city, whose
      sufferings must have excited the sympathy of all their
      fellow-citizens. Therefore, after taking measures to
      ascertain the state and decline of the sickness, I
      postponed my determination, having hopes, now happily
      realized, that, without hazard to the lives or health of
      the members, Congress might assemble at this place, where
      it was next by law to meet. I submit, however, to your
      consideration, whether a power to postpone the meeting of
      Congress, without passing the time fixed by the
      constitution, upon such occasions, would not be a useful
      amendment to the law of one thousand seven hundred and
      ninety-four.

      Although I cannot yet congratulate you on the
      re-establishment of peace in Europe, and the restoration of
      security to the persons and properties of our citizens from
      injustice and violence at sea, we have nevertheless
      abundant cause of gratitude to the Source of Benevolence
      and Influence, for interior tranquillity and personal
      security, for propitious seasons, prosperous agriculture,
      productive fisheries, and general improvements; and, above
      all, for a rational spirit of civil and religious liberty,
      and a calm, but steady determination to support our
      sovereignty, as well as our moral and religious principles,
      against all open and secret attacks.

      Our Envoys Extraordinary to the French Republic embarked,
      one in July, the other early in August, to join their
      colleague in Holland.[24] I have received intelligence of
      the arrival of both of them in Holland, from whence they
      all proceeded on their journey to Paris, within a few days
      of the nineteenth of September. Whatever may be the result
      of this mission, I trust that nothing will have been
      omitted on my part, to conduct the negotiation to a
      successful conclusion, on such equitable terms as may be
      compatible with the safety, honor, and interests of the
      United States. Nothing, in the mean time, will contribute
      so much to the preservation of peace, and the attainment of
      justice, as a manifestation of that energy and unanimity of
      which, on many former occasions, the people of the United
      States have given such memorable proofs, and the exertion
      of those resources for national defence, which a beneficent
      Providence has kindly placed within their power.

      It may be confidently asserted, that nothing has occurred
      since the adjournment of Congress, which renders
      inexpedient those precautionary measures recommended by me
      to the consideration of the two Houses, at the opening of
      your late extraordinary session. If that system was then
      prudent, it is more so now, as increasing depredations
      strengthen the reasons for its adoption.


      Indeed, whatever may be the issue of the negotiation with
      France, and whether the war in Europe is or is not to
      continue, I hold it most certain that perfect tranquillity
      and order will not soon be obtained. The state of society
      has so long been disturbed; the sense of moral and
      religious obligations so much weakened; public faith and
      national honor have been so impaired; respect to treaties
      has been so diminished, and the law of nations has lost so
      much of its force; while pride, ambition, avarice, and
      violence, have been so long unrestrained, there remains no
      reasonable ground on which to raise an expectation, that a
      commerce, without protection or defence, will not be
      plundered.

      The commerce of the United States is essential, if not to
      their existence, at least to their comfort, their growth,
      prosperity, and happiness. The genius, character, and
      habits of the people are highly commercial; their cities
      have been founded, and exist, upon commerce; our
      agriculture, fisheries, arts, and manufactures, are
      connected with and depend upon it; in short, commerce has
      made this country what it is, and it cannot be destroyed or
      neglected without involving the people in poverty and
      distress; great numbers are directly and solely supported
      by navigation--the faith of society is pledged for the
      preservation of the rights of commercial, and seafaring, no
      less than of the other citizens. Under this view of our
      affairs, I should hold myself guilty of a neglect of duty,
      if I forbore to recommend that we should make every
      exertion to protect our commerce, and to place our country
      in a suitable posture of defence, as the only sure means of
      preserving both.

      I have entertained an expectation, that it would have been
      in my power, at the opening of this session, to have
      communicated to you the agreeable information of the due
      execution of our treaty with His Catholic Majesty,
      respecting the withdrawing of his troops from our
      territory, and the demarkation of the line of limits; but
      by the latest authentic intelligence, Spanish garrisons
      were still continued within the limits of our country, and
      the running of the boundary line had not been commenced.
      These circumstances are the more to be regretted, as they
      cannot fail to affect the Indians in a manner injurious to
      the United States; still, however, indulging the hope that
      the answers which have been given, will remove the
      objections offered by the Spanish officers to the immediate
      execution of the treaty, I have judged it proper that we
      should continue in readiness to receive the posts, and to
      run the line of limits. Further information on this subject
      will be communicated in the course of the session.

      In connection with the unpleasant state of things on our
      western frontier, it is proper for me to mention the
      attempts of foreign agents to alienate the affections of
      the Indian nations, and to excite them to actual
      hostilities against the United States; great activity has
      been exerted by these persons, who have insinuated
      themselves among the Indian tribes, residing within the
      territory of the United States, to influence them, to
      transfer their affections and force to a foreign nation, to
      form them into a confederacy, and prepare them for war,
      against the United States.

      Although measures have been taken to counteract these
      infractions of our rights, to prevent Indian hostilities,
      and to preserve their attachment to the United States, it
      is my duty to observe, that, to give a better effect to
      these measures, and to obviate the consequences of a
      repetition of such practices, a law, providing adequate
      punishment for such offences, may be necessary.

      The Commissioners appointed under the fifth article of the
      Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, between the
      United States and Great Britain, to ascertain the river,
      which was truly intended, under the name of the St. Croix,
      mentioned in the Treaty of Peace, met at Passamaquoddy Bay
      in October, 1796, and viewed the mouths of the rivers in
      question, and the adjacent shores and islands; and being
      of opinion, that actual surveys of both rivers to their
      sources, were necessary, gave the agents of the two nations
      instructions for that purpose, and adjourned to meet at
      Boston in August; they met; but the surveys, requiring more
      time than had been supposed, and not being then completed,
      the Commissioners again adjourned to meet at Providence, in
      the State of Rhode Island, in June next, when we may expect
      a final examination and decision.

      The Commissioners appointed in pursuance of the sixth
      article of the treaty, met at Philadelphia in May last, to
      examine the claims of British subjects, for debts
      contracted before the peace, and still remaining due to
      them, from citizens or inhabitants of the United States.
      Various causes have hitherto prevented any determinations;
      but the business is now resumed, and doubtless will be
      prosecuted without interruption.

      Several decisions on the claims of the citizens of the
      United States, for losses, and damages, sustained by reason
      of irregular and illegal captures, or condemnations, of
      their vessels or other property, have been made by the
      Commissioners in London, conformably to the seventh article
      of the treaty; the sums awarded by the Commissioners have
      been paid by the British Government; a considerable number
      of other claims, where costs and damages, and not captured
      property, were the only objects in question, have been
      decided by arbitration, and the sums awarded to the
      citizens of the United States have also been paid.

      The Commissioners appointed agreeably to the 21st article
      of our Treaty with Spain, met at Philadelphia in the summer
      past, to examine and decide on the claims of our citizens
      for losses they have sustained in consequence of their
      vessels and cargoes having been taken by the subjects of
      His Catholic Majesty, during the late war between Spain and
      France; their sittings have been interrupted, but are now
      resumed.

      The United States being obligated to make compensation for
      the losses and damages sustained by British subjects, upon
      the award of the Commissioners acting under the sixth
      article of the Treaty with Great Britain, and for the
      losses and damages sustained by British subjects, by reason
      of the capture of their vessels and merchandise, taken
      within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,
      and brought into their ports, or taken by vessels
      originally armed in ports of the United States, upon the
      awards of the Commissioners acting under the seventh
      article of the same treaty, it is necessary that provision
      be made for fulfilling these obligations.

      The numerous captures of American vessels by cruisers of
      the French Republic, and of some by those of Spain, have
      occasioned considerable expenses, in making and supporting
      the claims of our citizens before their tribunals. The sums
      required for this purpose have, in divers instances, been
      disbursed by the Consuls of the United States; by means of
      the same captures, great numbers of our seamen have been
      thrown ashore in foreign countries, destitute of all means
      of subsistence, and the sick, in particular, have been
      exposed to grievous suffering.

      The Consuls have, in these cases also, advanced moneys for
      their relief; for these advances they reasonably expect
      reimbursements from the United States. The Consular act
      relative to seamen requires revision and amendment; the
      provisions for their support in foreign countries, and for
      their return, are found to be inadequate, and ineffectual.
      Another provision seems necessary to be added to the
      Consular act; some foreign vessels have been discovered
      sailing under the flag of the United States, and with
      forged papers. It seldom happens that the Consuls can
      detect this deception, because they have no authority to
      demand an inspection of the registers and sea letters.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

      It is my duty to recommend to your serious consideration
      those objects which, by the constitution, are placed
      particularly within your sphere--the national debt and
      taxes.

      Since the decay of the feudal system, by which the public
      defence was provided for, chiefly at the expense of
      individuals, a system of loans has been introduced. And as
      no nation can raise, within the year, by taxes, sufficient
      sums for its defence, and military operations in time of
      war, the sums loaned and debts contracted have necessarily
      become the subjects of what have been called funding
      systems. The consequences arising from the continued
      accumulation of public debts in other countries, ought to
      admonish us to be careful to prevent their growth in our
      own. The national defence must be provided for as well as
      the support of Government; but both should be accomplished,
      as much as possible, by immediate taxes, and as little as
      possible by loans. The estimates for the services for the
      ensuing year will, by my direction, be laid before you.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      We are met together at a most interesting period; the
      situations of the principal powers of Europe are singular
      and portentous: connected with some by treaties and with
      all by commerce, no important event there can be
      indifferent to us; such circumstances call with peculiar
      importunity, not less for a disposition to unite in all
      those measures on which the honor, safety, and prosperity
      of our country depend, than for all the exertions of wisdom
      and firmness.

      In all such measures you may rely on my zealous and hearty
      concurrence.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _November_ 23, 1797.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. STOCKTON, LAURANCE, and LIVERMORE, 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; and that the Speech be printed for the use of the Senate.


FRIDAY, November 24.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that
the House have agreed to so much of the resolution of the Senate, of the
22d instant, relative to the appointment of Chaplains, as is contained
in the words following, to wit:

"_Resolved_, That two Chaplains be appointed to Congress for the present
session, one by each House, who shall interchange weekly."

"The House have proceeded, by ballot, to the appointment of a Chaplain
on their part; and, upon examining the ballots, a majority of the votes
of the whole House was found in favor of the Rev. ASHBEL GREEN."


SATURDAY, November 25.

Mr. STOCKTON, from the committee, 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.

On motion, that a number of copies be printed, under an injunction that
no more should be struck off than may be necessary for the use of the
Senate, it passed in the negative.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary furnish such Senators as request it, with
copies of this report.


MONDAY, November 27.

HENRY TAZEWELL, from the State of Virginia, attended.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee, of
the draft of an Address in answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the
session; which, being read in paragraphs, and amended, was adopted, as
follows:

      _To the President of the United States_:

      SIR: The communications you thought proper to make in your
      Speech to both Houses of Congress on the opening of their
      present session, afford additional proofs of the attention,
      integrity, and firmness, which have always marked your
      official character.

      We cannot but approve of the measures you had taken to
      ascertain the state and decline of the contagious sickness
      which has so lately afflicted the city of Philadelphia, and
      the pleasing circumstance that Congress is now assembled at
      that place, without hazard to the health of its members,
      evinces the propriety of your having postponed a
      determination to convene the National Legislature at
      another place. We shall take into consideration the law of
      1794, on this subject, and will readily concur in any
      amendment which may be deemed expedient.

      It would have given us much pleasure to have received your
      congratulations on the re-establishment of peace in Europe,
      and the restoration of security to the persons and property
      of our citizens from injustice and violence at sea. But,
      though these events, so desirable to our country and the
      world, have not taken place, yet we have abundant cause of
      gratitude to the Great Disposer of human events for
      interior tranquillity and personal security, for propitious
      seasons, prosperous agriculture, productive fisheries, and
      general improvement; and, above all, for a rational spirit
      of civil and religious liberty, and a calm, but steady
      determination to support our sovereignty against all open
      and secret attacks.

      We learn, with satisfaction, that our Envoys Extraordinary
      to the French Republic had safely arrived in Europe, and
      were proceeding to the scene of negotiation; and, whatever
      may be the result of the mission, we are perfectly
      satisfied that nothing on your part has been omitted, which
      could, in any way, conduce to a successful conclusion of
      the negotiation, upon terms compatible with the safety,
      honor, and interest, of the United States; and we are fully
      convinced that, in the mean time, a manifestation of that
      unanimity and energy of which the people of the United
      States have given such memorable proofs, and a proper
      exertion of those resources of national defence, which we
      possess, will essentially contribute to the preservation of
      peace and the attainment of justice.

      We think, sir, with you, that the commerce of the United
      States is essential to the growth, comfort, and prosperity
      of our country; and that the faith of society is pledged
      for the preservation of the rights of commercial and
      seafaring, no less than of other citizens. And even if our
      negotiation with France should terminate favorably, and the
      war in Europe cease, yet the state of society, which
      unhappily prevails in so great a portion of the world, and
      the experience of past times, under better circumstances,
      unite in warning us that a commerce so extensive, and which
      holds out so many temptations to lawless plunderers, can
      never be safe without protection; and we hold ourselves
      obliged, by every tie of duty which binds us to our
      constituents, to promote and concur in such measures of
      marine defence, as may convince our merchants and seamen
      that their rights are not sacrificed, nor their injuries
      forgotten.

      We regret, that, notwithstanding the clear and explicit
      terms of the treaty between the United States and His
      Catholic Majesty, the Spanish garrisons are not yet
      withdrawn from our territory, nor the running of the
      boundary line commenced. The United States have been
      faithful in the performance of their obligations to Spain,
      and had reason to expect a compliance equally prompt on the
      part of that power. We still, however, indulge the hope
      that the convincing answers, which have been given to the
      objections stated by the Spanish officers, to the immediate
      execution of the treaty, will have their proper effect; and
      that this treaty, so mutually beneficial to the contracting
      parties, will be finally observed with good faith. We
      therefore entirely approve of your determination to
      continue in readiness to receive the posts, and to run the
      line of partition between our territory and that of the
      King of Spain.

      Attempts to alienate the affections of the Indians; to form
      them into a confederacy, and to excite them to actual
      hostility against the United States, whether made by
      foreign agents, or by others, are so injurious to our
      citizens at large, and so inhuman with respect to our
      citizens inhabiting the adjacent territory, as to deserve
      the most exemplary punishment; and we will cheerfully
      afford our aid in framing a law, which may prescribe a
      punishment adequate to the commission of crimes so heinous.

      The several objects you have pointed out to the attention
      of the Legislature, whether they regard our internal or
      external relations, shall receive from us that
      consideration which they merit; and we will readily concur
      in all such measures as may be necessary, either to enable
      us to fulfil our engagements at home, or to cause ourselves
      to be respected abroad. And, at this portentous period,
      when the powers of Europe, with whom we are connected by
      treaty or commerce, are in so critical a situation, and
      when the conduct of some of those powers towards the United
      States is so hostile and menacing, the several branches of
      the Government are, in our opinion, called upon, with
      peculiar importunity, to unite, and, by union, not only to
      devise and carry those measures on which the safety and
      prosperity of our country depend, but also to undeceive
      those nations who, regarding us as a weak and divided
      people, have pursued systems of aggression inconsistent
      with a state of peace between independent nations. And, sir
      we beg leave to assure you, that we derive a singular
      consolation from the reflection that, at such a time, the
      Executive part of our Government has been committed to your
      hands, for, in your integrity, talents, and firmness, we
      place the most entire confidence.

                          JACOB READ,

                          _President of the Senate pro tempore_.

_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.

On motion, _Ordered_, That Messrs. TRACY, BINGHAM, and GREENE, be a
committee, to inquire what business remained unfinished at the close of
the last session of Congress, which, in their opinion, is proper for the
Senate to take into consideration the present session, and, also, what
laws will expire before the next session of Congress, and report thereon
to the Senate.


TUESDAY, November 28.

Mr. STOCKTON 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 this day at 12 o'clock, at his own house.

The Senate accordingly waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and
the PRESIDENT _pro tempore_, in their name, presented the Address agreed
to yesterday.

To which the PRESIDENT made the following Reply:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      I thank you for this Address.

      When, after the most laborious investigation, and serious
      reflection, without partial considerations, or personal
      motives, measures have been adopted or recommended, I can
      receive no higher testimony of their rectitude, than the
      approbation of an assembly, so independent, patriotic, and
      enlightened, as the Senate of the United States.

      Nothing has afforded me more entire satisfaction, than the
      coincidence of your judgment with mine, in the opinion of
      the essential importance of our commerce, and the absolute
      necessity of a maritime defence. What is it, that has drawn
      to Europe the superfluous riches of the three other
      quarters of the globe, but a marine? What is it that has
      drained the wealth of Europe itself into the coffers of two
      or three of its principal commercial powers, but a marine?

      The world has furnished no example of a flourishing
      commerce, without a maritime protection; and a moderate
      knowledge of man and his history will convince any one,
      that no such prodigy ever can arise. A mercantile marine
      and a military marine must grow up together; one cannot
      long exist without the other.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _November_ 28, 1797.

The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, November 29.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the memorial and address of the
people called Quakers, from their yearly meeting, held in Philadelphia,
in the year 1797, requesting the attention of Congress to the oppressed
state of the African race, and the general prevalence of vice and
immorality; and the same was read and ordered to lie on the table.


THURSDAY, November 30.

_Ordered_, That the memorial and address of the people called Quakers,
presented yesterday, be withdrawn.


FRIDAY, December 1.

JAMES HILLHOUSE, from the State of Connecticut, attended.


MONDAY, December 11.

THEODORE SEDGWICK, from the State of Massachusetts, attended.


WEDNESDAY, December 13.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, Vice President of the United States and President of
the Senate, attended.


FRIDAY, December 22.

JOHN E. HOWARD, from the State of Maryland, attended.


THURSDAY, December 28.

JOHN BROWN, from the State of Kentucky, attended.


FRIDAY, December 29.

STEPHENS THOMPSON MASON, from the State of Virginia, attended.


MONDAY, January 8, 1798.

JAMES ROSS, from the State of Pennsylvania, attended.


THURSDAY, January 11.

JAMES LLOYD, appointed a Senator by the State of Maryland, in the place
of John Henry, elected Governor of said State, produced his credentials;
and, the oath required by law being administered, he took his seat in
the Senate.


WEDNESDAY, January 17.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      The situation of affairs between the United States and the
      Cherokee Indians having evinced the expediency of a treaty
      with that nation, for the promotion of justice to them, as
      well as of the interests and convenience of our citizens, I
      have nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent of
      the Senate, appointed Commissioners to hold conferences,
      and conclude a treaty, as early as the season of the year
      and the convenience of the parties will admit.

      As we know very well, by experience, such negotiations
      cannot be carried on without considerable expenses, I
      recommend to your consideration the propriety of making an
      appropriation, at this time, for defraying such as may be
      necessary for holding and concluding a treaty.

      That you may form your judgments with greater facility, I
      shall direct the proper officer to lay before you an
      estimate of such articles and expenses as may be thought
      indispensable.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _January_ 17, 1798.


MONDAY, January 22.

JOSIAH TATTNALL, from the State of Georgia, attended.


FRIDAY, February 2.

JOHN SLOSS HOBART, appointed a Senator by the State of New York, in the
place of Philip Schuyler, resigned, produced his credentials, and, the
oath required by law being administered, he took his seat in the Senate.


MONDAY, February 5.

_French Outrage._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES; which was read:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      I have received a letter from his Excellency Charles
      Pinckney, Esq., Governor of the State of South Carolina,
      dated the 22d October, 1797, enclosing a number of
      depositions and witnesses to several captures and outrages
      committed within and near the limits of the United States,
      by a French privateer belonging to Cape Francois, or Monte
      Christo, called the Vertitude or Fortitude, and commanded
      by a person of the name of Jordan or Jourdain, and
      particularly upon an English merchant ship named the
      Oracabissa, which he first plundered and then burned, with
      the rest of her cargo, of great value, within the territory
      of the United States, in the harbor of Charleston, on the
      17th of October last. Copies of which letter and
      depositions, and also of several other depositions relative
      to the same subject, received from the Collector of
      Charleston, are herewith communicated.

      Whenever the channel of diplomatical communication between
      the United States and France shall be opened, I shall
      demand satisfaction for the insult and reparation for the
      injury.

      I have transmitted these papers to Congress, not so much
      for the purpose of communicating an account of so daring a
      violation of the territory of the United States, as to show
      the propriety and necessity of enabling the Executive
      authority of Government to take measures for protecting the
      citizens of the United States and such foreigners as have a
      right to enjoy their peace, and the protection of their
      laws, within their limits, in that as well as some other
      harbors which are equally exposed.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _February_ 5, 1798.

_Ordered_, That the Message and papers referred to lie for
consideration.


MONDAY, February 19.

JOSHUA CLAYTON, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of
Delaware, in the place of John Vining, resigned, produced his
credentials, which were read, and, the oath required by law being
administered, he took his seat in the Senate.


MONDAY, March 5.

_Affairs with France._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      The first despatches from our Envoys Extraordinary, since
      their arrival at Paris, were received at the Secretary of
      State's office at a late hour the last evening. They are
      all in a character which will require some days to be
      deciphered, except the last, which is dated the 8th of
      January, 1798. The contents of this letter are of so much
      importance to be immediately made known to Congress and to
      the public, especially to the mercantile part of our
      fellow-citizens, that I have thought it my duty to
      communicate them to both Houses without loss of time.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _March_ 5, 1798.

The Message and paper therein referred to were read, and ordered to lie
for consideration.


MONDAY, March 19.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      The despatches from the Envoys Extraordinary of the United
      States to the French Republic, which were mentioned in my
      Message to both Houses of Congress, of the fifth instant,
      have been examined and maturely considered.

      While I feel a satisfaction in informing you that their
      exertions, for the adjustment of the differences between
      the two nations, have been sincere and unremitted, it is
      incumbent on me to declare, that I perceive no ground of
      expectation that the objects of their mission can be
      accomplished, on terms compatible with the safety, the
      honor, or the essential interests of the nation.

      This result cannot, with justice, be attributed to any want
      of moderation on the part of this Government, or to any
      indisposition to forego secondary interests, for the
      preservation of peace. Knowing it to be my duty, and
      believing it to be your wish, as well as that of the great
      body of the people, to avoid, by all reasonable
      concessions, any participation in the contentions of
      Europe, the powers vested in our Envoys were commensurate
      with a liberal and pacific policy, and that high confidence
      which might justly be reposed in the abilities, patriotism,
      and integrity, of the characters to whom the negotiation
      was committed. After a careful review of the whole subject,
      with the aid of all the information I have received, I can
      discern nothing which could have insured or contributed to
      success, that has been omitted on my part, and nothing
      further which can be attempted, consistently with maxims
      for which our country has contended at every hazard, and
      which constitute the basis of our national sovereignty.

      Under these circumstances, I cannot forbear to reiterate
      the recommendations which have been formerly made, and to
      exhort you to adopt, with promptitude, decision, and
      unanimity, such measures as the ample resources of the
      country afford, for the protection of our seafaring and
      commercial citizens; for the defence of any exposed
      portions of our territory; for replenishing our arsenals,
      establishing foundries and military manufactures; and to
      provide such efficient revenue, as will be necessary to
      defray extraordinary expenses, and supply the deficiencies
      which may be occasioned by depredations on our commerce.

      The present state of things is so essentially different
      from that in which instructions were given to the
      collectors to restrain vessels of the United States from
      sailing in an armed condition, that the principle on which
      those orders were issued has ceased to exist. I therefore
      deem it proper to inform Congress, that I no longer
      conceive myself justifiable in continuing them, unless in
      particular cases, where there may be reasonable ground of
      suspicion that such vessels are intended to be employed
      contrary to law.

      In all your proceedings, it will be important to manifest a
      zeal, a vigor, and concert, in defence of the national
      rights, proportioned to the danger with which they are
      threatened.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _March_ 19, 1798.

The Message was read and referred to the committee appointed on the 29th
November last, who have under consideration that part of the Speech of
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, at the commencement of the session,
which relates to the protection of commerce, to consider and report
thereon to the Senate.


TUESDAY, April 3.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      In compliance with the request of the House of
      Representatives, expressed in their resolution of the
      second of this month, I transmit to both Houses those
      instructions to, and despatches from, the Envoys
      Extraordinary of the United States to the French Republic,
      which were mentioned in my Message of the nineteenth of
      March last, omitting only some names, and a few expressions
      descriptive of the persons.

      I request that they may be considered in confidence, until
      the members of Congress are fully possessed of their
      contents and shall have had opportunity to deliberate on
      the consequences of their publication; after which time I
      submit them to your wisdom.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _April_ 3, 1798.

The galleries being cleared, the Message and documents were read.

_Ordered_, That they lie for consideration.


MONDAY, April 16.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter from JOHN SLOSS HOBART,
resigning his seat in the Senate, in consequence of his appointment to
be Judge of the New York district; which letter was read.

_Ordered_, That the VICE PRESIDENT be requested to notify the Executive
of the State of New York that JOHN SLOSS HOBART hath accepted the
appointment of Judge of the New York district, and that his seat in the
Senate is of course vacated.


TUESDAY, April 17.

The bill authorizing the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to raise a
provisional army was read the second time.


WEDNESDAY, May 2.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee
authorizing Thomas Pinckney, late Envoy Extraordinary to the King of
Spain, and Minister Plenipotentiary to the King of Great Britain, to
receive the customary presents to foreign Ministers at those courts.

On the question to agree to the first resolution reported, to wit:

      "_Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
      of the United States of America in Congress assembled_,
      That Congress doth consent that Thomas Pinckney, Esq., who,
      as Envoy Extraordinary of the United States, negotiated the
      Treaty of Friendship, Limits, and Navigation between the
      United States and the King of Spain, may receive from the
      said King such present as it is customary for His Catholic
      Majesty to make to such persons as negotiate treaties with
      him:"

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 5, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Bloodworth, Clayton,
      Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer,
      Laurance, Livermore, Martin, Read, Sedgwick, Stockton, and
      Tracy.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Brown, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, and
      Tazewell.

And the other resolution reported was agreed to, in the words following:

      _And be it further resolved_, That Congress doth consent
      that the said Thomas Pinckney, Esq., lately Minister
      Plenipotentiary from the United States to the King of Great
      Britain, may receive from the said King such present as it
      is customary for His Britannic Majesty to make to Ministers
      Plenipotentiary on taking leave of him.


THURSDAY, June 21.

_Affairs with France._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      While I congratulate you on the arrival of General
      Marshall, one of our late Envoys Extraordinary to the
      French Republic, at a place of safety, where he is justly
      held in honor, I think it my duty to communicate to you a
      letter received by him from Mr. Gerry, the only one of the
      three who has not received his _congé_. This letter,
      together with another, from the Minister of Foreign
      Relations to him, of the third of April, and his answer of
      the fourth, will show the situation in which he remains;
      his intentions and prospects.

      I presume that, before this time, he has received fresh
      instructions, (a copy of which accompanies this message,)
      to consent to no loans, and therefore the negotiation may
      be considered at an end.

      I will never send another Minister to France without
      assurances that he will be received, respected, and
      honored, as the representative of a great, free, powerful,
      and independent nation.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _June_ 21, 1798.

The Message and documents were read.

_Resolved_, That five hundred copies thereof be printed for the use of
the Senate.


MONDAY, June 25.

The bill to declare the treaties between the United States and the
Republic of France void and of no effect, was read the third time; and
the final passage of the bill was determined in the affirmative--yeas
14, nays 5, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Foster, Goodhue,
      Hillhouse, Howard, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, North,
      Paine, Read, Sedgwick, and Tracy.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Brown, Langdon, Martin, Mason, and Tazewell.

_Resolved_, That this bill pass: that it be engrossed; and that the
title thereof be, "An act to declare the treaties between the United
States and the Republic of France void and of no effect."


WEDNESDAY, June 27.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the choice of a
President _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and THEODORE
SEDGWICK was duly elected.

The bill to define more particularly the crime of treason, and to define
and punish the crime of sedition, was read the second time.

On motion that this bill be committed, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 15, nays 6, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Foster, Goodhue,
      Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Laurance, Lloyd, North, Paine,
      Read, Sedgwick, Stockton, and Tracy.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brown, Langdon, Livermore, Martin,
      and Mason.

_Ordered_, That this bill be referred to Messrs. LLOYD, TRACY, STOCKTON,
CHIPMAN, and READ, to consider and report thereon to the Senate.


FRIDAY, June 29.

The bill to authorize the PRESIDENT to prevent and regulate the landing
of French passengers, and other persons who may arrive within the United
States from foreign places, was read the third time.

On motion, to amend the proviso to the fourth section to read as
follows:

      "_Provided_, That nothing in this act shall be construed to
      prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as
      any State may think proper by law to admit, nor to such
      persons whose admission may be prohibited by the respective
      States:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 3, nays 17, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Mason, and Tazewell.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard,
      Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, Martin,
      North, Paine, Read, Sedgwick, Stockton, and Tracy.

On motion by Mr. MASON, to strike out these words from the preamble:

      "The peculiar circumstances of the United States, in
      relation to the Republic of France, and the citizens
      thereof, require that, whilst the United States have
      afforded hospitality and protection to Frenchmen who have
      sought an asylum in this country, they should, on the other
      hand, guard against the arrival and admission of such
      evil-disposed persons as by their machinations, may
      endanger the internal safety and tranquillity of the
      country;" in order to insert the following words: "It is
      represented that, on the evacuation of Port au Prince by
      the British troops, a number of French white men and
      negroes were put on board of vessels bound to the United
      States, some of which have arrived, and others may be
      shortly expected, and it is deemed dangerous to admit
      indiscriminately such persons into the United States:"

It was agreed to divide the motion, and that the words should be struck
out; and, on the question to agree to the substitute, it was determined
in the negative--yeas 10, nays 10, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Langdon, Laurance,
      Livermore, Martin, Mason, North, Read, and Tazewell.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer,
      Lloyd, Paine, Sedgwick, Stockton, and Tracy.

So the amendment was lost.

And the bill being further amended, by striking out the remainder of the
preamble,

_Resolved_, That the consideration of this bill be postponed until
to-morrow.


SATURDAY, June 30.

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill to authorize the
PRESIDENT to prevent or regulate the landing of French passengers, and
other persons who may arrive within the ports of the United States from
foreign places.

On motion, by Mr. MARTIN, one of the majority in favor of the exception
yesterday agreed to, namely, "except children under the age of twelve
years, and women, in cases especially authorized by the PRESIDENT," and
that it be reconsidered, it was determined in the negative--yeas 6, nays
15, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Hillhouse, Howard, Lloyd, Martin, and Read.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Brown, Chipman, Foster, Goodhue,
      Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, North, Paine,
      Sedgwick, Stockton, Tazewell, and Tracy.

_Resolved_, That this bill pass; that it be engrossed; and that the
title thereof be "An act to authorize the PRESIDENT to prevent or
regulate the landing of French passengers, and other persons, who may
arrive within the ports of the United States from foreign places."

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill, sent from the House
of Representatives, entitled "An act to provide for the valuation of
lands and dwelling houses, and the enumeration of slaves, within the
United States."

On motion, by Mr. PAINE, to agree to the following amendment to the
proviso in the eighth section, "And all uncultivated lands, except such
as make part or parcel of a farm; and except wood lots, used or reserved
for the purposes of fuel, fencing, lumber, or building:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 10, nays 11, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Brown, Chipman, Goodhue, Latimer,
      Laurance, Livermore, Paine, Sedgwick, and Stockton.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Foster, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Lloyd,
      Martin, Mason, North, Read, Tazewell, and Tracy.

On motion, by one of the majority, to reconsider and restore the
following words, struck out from the end of the proviso to the eighth
section: "or which, at the time of making the said valuation or
enumeration, shall not have been assessed for, nor be then held liable
to, taxation under the laws of the State wherein the same is, or may be,
situated or possessed, shall be exempted from the aforesaid valuation
and enumeration:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 6, nays 14, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Foster, Howard, Latimer, Laurance,
      and North.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Brown, Chipman, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Langdon,
      Livermore, Lloyd, Martin, Mason, Paine, Read, Sedgwick,
      Tazewell, and Tracy.

On motion, by Mr. MASON, to add the following words to the end of the
eighth section: "except such as, from fixed infirmity or bodily
disability, may be incapable of labor:"

It was determined in the affirmative--yeas 11, nays 8, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Livermore, Lloyd,
      Martin, Mason, Paine, Read, Sedgwick, and Tazewell.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Brown, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse,
      Laurance, North, and Tracy.

On motion, by Mr. BROWN, to strike out of that part of the eighth
section which respects the enumeration of slaves these words "above the
age of twelve, and under the age of fifty years:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 10, nays 11, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Brown, Chipman, Goodhue,
      Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Lloyd, North, and Sedgwick.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Foster, Howard, Langdon, Livermore, Martin,
      Mason, Paine, Read, Stockton, Tazewell, and Tracy.

The report of the committee having been agreed to, and the bill amended
accordingly,

_Resolved_, That it pass to the third reading as amended.


MONDAY, July 2.

JOHN RUTHERFORD, from the State of New Jersey, attended.


TUESDAY, July 3.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to
whom was referred the bill to define more particularly the crime of
treason, and to define and punish the crime of sedition; and having
agreed to the report, the bill was amended accordingly; and the question
to agree to the third reading of the bill, as amended, was determined in
the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 5, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Clayton, Foster, Greene,
      Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin,
      North, Paine, Read, Rutherford, Sedgwick, Stockton, and
      Tracy.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brown, Langdon, Mason, and
      Tazewell.


WEDNESDAY, July 4.

_Treason and Sedition._

BILL TO DEFINE.

On motion to expunge the following words from the second section
reported as an amendment:

      "Or shall, in manner aforesaid, traduce or defame the
      PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, or any Court or Judge
      thereof, by declarations, tending to criminate their
      motives in any official transaction:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 8, nays 15, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brown, Howard, Langdon, Martin,
      Mason, North, and Tazewell.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Chipman, Clayton, Foster, Goodhue,
      Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, Paine,
      Read, Rutherford, Sedgwick, Stockton, and Tracy.

On motion to expunge the whole of the second section reported by the
committee, in the words following:

      "SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That if any person
      shall, by any libellous or scandalous writing, printing,
      publishing, or speaking, traduce or defame the Legislature
      of the United States, by seditious or inflammatory
      declarations or expressions, with intent to create a belief
      in the citizens thereof, that the said Legislature, in
      enacting any law, was induced thereto by motives hostile to
      the constitution, or liberties and happiness of the people
      thereof; or shall, in manner aforesaid, traduce or defame
      the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES or any Court or Judge
      thereof, by declarations tending to criminate their
      motives, in any official transaction; the person so
      offending, and thereof convicted, before any court of the
      United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be
      punished by a fine, not exceeding two thousand dollars, and
      by imprisonment, not exceeding two years:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 6, nays 18, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brown, Howard, Langdon, Mason, and
      Tazewell.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Chipman, Clayton, Foster, Goodhue, Greene,
      Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, Martin,
      North, Paine, Read, Rutherford, Sedgwick, Stockton, and
      Tracy.

The question on the final passage of the bill was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 18, nays 6, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Chipman, Clayton, Foster, Goodhue, Greene,
      Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, Martin,
      North, Paine, Read, Rutherford, Sedgwick, Stockton, and
      Tracy.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass; that it be engrossed; and
that the title thereof be "An act in addition to the act, entitled 'An
act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.'"


WEDNESDAY, July 11.

The bill for encouraging the capture of French armed vessels, by armed
ships or vessels owned by a citizen or citizens of the United States,
was read the third time; and the final passage of the bill was
determined in the affirmative--yeas 16, nays 4, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Chipman, Goodhue, Greene,
      Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin, North,
      Paine, Read, Sedgwick, Stockton, and Tracy.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Brown, Langdon, Mason, and Tazewell.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass; that it be engrossed; and
that the title thereof be "An act for encouraging the capture of French
armed vessels, by armed ships or vessels owned by a citizen or citizens
of the United States."


THURSDAY, July 12.

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, entitled "An act
making further appropriations for the additional Naval Armament;" and
the question on the final passage of the bill, as amended, was
determined in the affirmative--yeas 13, nays 3, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Clayton, Foster, Goodhue,
      Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin,
      North, Paine, Read, Rutherford, Sedgwick, Stockton, and
      Tracy.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Mason, and Tazewell.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill do pass as amended.


FRIDAY, July 13.

Mr. READ, from the committee to whom was referred the bill, sent from
the House of Representatives, entitled "An act providing for the
enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States," reported the bill
without amendment.

On motion, by Mr. LIVERMORE, to postpone the further consideration of
this bill to the next session of Congress, it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 11, nays 7.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      A resolution of both Houses of Congress, authorizing an
      adjournment on Monday, the 16th of this month, has been
      laid before me. Sensible of the severity of the service in
      so long a session, it is with great reluctance that I find
      myself obliged to offer any consideration which may operate
      against the inclination of the members; but certain
      measures of Executive authority which will require the
      consideration of the Senate, and which cannot be matured,
      in all probability, before Monday or Tuesday, oblige me to
      request of the Senate that they would continue their
      session until Wednesday or Thursday.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _July 13, 1798_.

The Message was read, and ordered to lie for consideration.


MONDAY, July 16.

The Senate took into consideration the report of the committee to whom
was referred the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES of the
13th instant, and which is as follows:

      "That as, in the opinion of the PRESIDENT, certain measures
      of Executive authority will acquire the consideration of
      the Senate, and which could not be matured before Monday or
      Tuesday, it is the opinion of the committee, that the
      Senate should adjourn in their Executive capacity to meet
      to-morrow at the Senate Chamber, at ten o'clock in the
      forenoon, on Executive business."

And the report was adopted.

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 notify him, that, unless he may have
any further communications to make to the two Houses of Congress, they
are ready to adjourn; and desire the appointment of a committee on the
part of the Senate.

The Senate took into consideration this resolution of the House of
Representatives.

_Resolved_, That they do concur therein, and that Messrs. CHIPMAN and
GREENE be the committee on the part of the Senate.

Mr. CHIPMAN reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, who informed them that he had
nothing further to communicate to Congress, except what might result
from the last enrolled bill now under his consideration.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives
therewith; and that the Senate, having finished the Legislative business
before them, are about to adjourn.

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.

The Senate then went into the consideration of Executive business--after
which,

The PRESIDENT declared the Senate, so far as respects its Legislative
functions, adjourned to the time by the constitution prescribed; and, in
its Executive capacity, until to-morrow morning at ten o'clock.


TUESDAY, July 17, 1798.

Agreeably to the adjournment of yesterday, as stated at large in the
Legislative proceedings, the Senate assembled.

PRESENT:

THEODORE SEDGWICK, President _pro tempore_, from the State of
Massachusetts.

BENJAMIN GOODHUE, from Massachusetts.

NATHANIEL CHIPMAN, from Vermont.

JAMES HILLARY and URIAH TRACY, from Connecticut.

THEODORE FOSTER and RAY GREENE, from Rhode Island.

JOHN LAURANCE and WILLIAM NORTH, from New York.

JOHN RUTHERFORD, from New Jersey.

WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania.

HENRY LATIMER, from Delaware.

JOHN E. HOWARD, from Maryland.

HENRY TAZEWELL, from Virginia.

JOHN BROWN, from Kentucky.

JOSEPH ANDERSON, from Tennessee.

ALEXANDER MARTIN, from North Carolina.

JACOB READ, from South Carolina.

_Ordered_, That the following summons, directed to the Senators of the
United States, respectively, be entered on the journals:

      _The President of the United States to ----, Senator for
      the State of ----._

      Certain matters touching the public good, requiring that
      the session of the Senate, for Executive business, should
      be continued, and that the members thereof should convene
      on Tuesday, the 17th day of July, inst., you are desired to
      attend at the Senate Chamber, in Philadelphia, on that
      day, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, then and there to
      receive and deliberate on such communications as shall be
      made to you on my part.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _July 16, 1798_.


WEDNESDAY, July 18.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      Believing that the letter received this morning from
      General Washington, will give high satisfaction to the
      Senate, I transmit them a copy of it, and congratulate them
      and the public on this great event--the General's
      acceptance of his appointment as Lieutenant General and
      Commander-in-Chief of the Army.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _July 17, 1798_.

                          MOUNT VERNON, _July 13, 1798_.

      DEAR SIR: I had the honor, on the evening of the 11th
      instant, to receive from the hands of the Secretary of War,
      your favor of the 7th, announcing that you had, with the
      advice and consent of the Senate, appointed me Lieutenant
      General and Commander-in-Chief of all the armies raised or
      to be raised for the service of the United States.

      I cannot express how greatly affected I am at this new
      proof of public confidence, and the highly flattering
      manner in which you have been pleased to make the
      communication; at the same time I must not conceal from you
      my earnest wish that the choice had fallen upon a man less
      declined in years, and better qualified to encounter the
      usual vicissitudes of war.

      You know, sir, what calculation I had made relative to the
      probable course of events on my retiring from office, and
      the determination I had consoled myself with, of closing
      the remnant of my days in my present peaceful abode; you
      will, therefore, be at no loss to conceive and appreciate
      the sensations I must have experienced to bring my mind to
      any conclusion that would pledge me, at so late a period of
      life, to leave scenes I sincerely love, to enter upon the
      boundless field of public action, incessant trouble, and
      high responsibility.

      It was not possible for me to remain ignorant of, or
      indifferent to, recent transactions. The conduct of the
      Directory of France towards our country; their insidious
      hostility to its Government; their various practices to
      withdraw the affections of the people from it; the evident
      tendency of their acts and those of their agents to
      countenance and invigorate opposition; their disregard of
      solemn treaties and the laws of nations; their war upon our
      defenceless commerce; their treatment of our ministers of
      peace; and their demands, amounting to tribute; could not
      fail to excite in me corresponding sentiments with those my
      countrymen have so generally expressed in their
      affectionate addresses to you. Believe me, sir, no one can
      more cordially approve of the wise and prudent measures of
      your Administration. They ought to inspire universal
      confidence; and will, no doubt, combined with the state of
      things, call from Congress such laws and means as will
      enable you to meet the full force and extent of the crisis.

      Satisfied, therefore, that you have sincerely wished and
      endeavored to avert war, and exhausted, to the last drop,
      the cup of reconciliation, we can with pure hearts appeal
      to Heaven for the justice of our cause, and may
      confidently trust the final result to that kind Providence
      who has heretofore, and so often, signally favored the
      people of these United States.

      Thinking in this manner, and feeling how incumbent it is
      upon every person, of every description, to contribute at
      all times to his country's welfare, and especially in a
      moment like the present, when every thing we hold dear and
      sacred is so seriously threatened, I have finally
      determined to accept the commission of Commander-in-Chief
      of the Armies of the United States; with the reserve only
      that I shall not be called into the field until the Army is
      in a situation to require my presence, or it becomes
      indispensable by the urgency of circumstances.

      In making this reservation, I beg it to be understood, that
      I do not mean to withhold any assistance to arrange and
      organize the Army, which you may think I can afford. I take
      the liberty also to mention, that I must decline having my
      acceptance considered as drawing after it any immediate
      charge upon the public, or that I can receive any
      emoluments annexed to the appointment, before entering into
      a situation to incur expense.

      The Secretary of War being anxious to return to the seat of
      Government, I have detained him no longer than was
      necessary to a full communication upon the several points
      he had in charge.

      With very great respect and consideration, I have the honor
      to be, dear sir, your most obedient and humble servant,

                          G. WASHINGTON.

      JOHN ADAMS, _President of the United States_.

The Message and letter were read, and five hundred copies thereof
ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      I nominate Alexander Hamilton, of New York, to be Inspector
      General of the Army, with the rank of Major General.

      Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, to be a
      Major General.

      Henry Knox, of Massachusetts, to be a Major General.

      Henry Lee, of Virginia, to be a Major General of the
      Provisional Army.

      Edward Hand, of Pennsylvania, to be a Major General of the
      Provisional Army.

      John Brooks, of Massachusetts, to be a Brigadier General.

      William Washington, of South Carolina, to be a Brigadier
      General.

      Jonathan Dayton, of New Jersey, to be a Brigadier General.

      William Stevens Smith, of New York, to be Adjutant General,
      with the rank of Brigadier General.

      Ebenezer Huntington, of Connecticut, to be a Brigadier
      General of the Provisional Army.

      Anthony Walton White, to be a Brigadier General of the
      Provisional Army.

      William Richardson Davie, of North Carolina, to be a
      Brigadier General of the Provisional Army.

      John Sevier, of Tennessee, to be a Brigadier General of the
      Provisional Army.

      James Craik, of Virginia, to be Physician General of the
      Army.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      JULY 18, 1798.

The Message was read, and ordered to lie for consideration.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      I nominate William Winder, of Maryland, to be Accountant of
      the Navy.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      JULY 18, 1798.


THURSDAY, July 19.

The Senate took into consideration the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, of the 18th instant, and the nomination contained
therein, of William Winder, to office. Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That they do advise and consent to the appointment agreeably
to the nomination.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.

The Senate took into consideration the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, of the 18th instant, and the nominations contained
therein, of Alexander Hamilton, and others, to military appointment.
Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That they do advise and consent to the appointments,
agreeably to the nominations, respectively; except to that of William
Stevens Smith, of New York, to be Adjutant General, with the rank of
Brigadier General, to which they do not advise and consent.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.

_Ordered_, That Mr. BINGHAM and Mr. LAURANCE be a committee to wait on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him, that having finished
the Executive business before them, they are ready to adjourn, unless he
may have any further matters for their consideration.

Mr. BINGHAM reported, from the committee last mentioned, that the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES informed them that he had a further
communication to make to the Senate.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      I nominate William North, of New York, to be Adjutant
      General of the Army, with the rank of Brigadier General.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _July 19, 1798_.

The Message was read.

On motion, it was agreed, by unanimous consent, to dispense with the
rule, and that the said nomination be now considered. Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That they do advise and consent to the appointment,
agreeably to the nomination.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES. Whereupon,

The PRESIDENT adjourned the Senate to the first Monday in December next,
to meet in this place.




FIFTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES In THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, November 13, 1797.

This being the day appointed by law for the meeting of Congress, the
House of Representatives assembled in their Chamber, and the following
members answered to their names, to wit:

_From New Hampshire._--ABIEL FOSTER.

_From Massachusetts._--STEPHEN BULLOCK, SAMUEL LYMAN, JOHN READ, WILLIAM
SHEPARD, GEORGE THATCHER, JOSEPH B. VARNUM, and PELEG WADSWORTH.

_From Connecticut._--JOHN ALLEN, JOSHUA COIT, ROGER GRISWOLD, and
NATHANIEL SMITH.

_From New York._--LUCAS ELMENDORPH, HENRY GLENN, JONATHAN N. HAVENS,
HEZEKIAH L. HOSMER, JOHN E. VAN ALLEN, and JOHN WILLIAMS.

_From New Jersey._--JONATHAN DAYTON, (Speaker,) and THOMAS SINNICKSON.

_From Pennsylvania._--JOHN CHAPMAN, ALBERT GALLATIN, THOMAS HARTLEY, and
JOHN SWANWICK.

_From Maryland._--GEORGE BAER, junior, WILLIAM CRAIK, GEORGE DENT, and
RICHARD SPRIGG, junior.

_From Virginia._--JOHN DAWSON, D. HOLMES, JAMES MACHIR, DANIEL MORGAN,
and ANTHONY NEW.

_North Carolina._--MATTHEW LOCKE, NATHANIEL MACON, and RICHARD STANFORD.

_South Carolina._--ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, and JOHN RUTLEDGE, junior.

Several new members, to wit: ISAAC PARKER, from Massachusetts; THOMAS
TILLINGHAST, returned to serve as a member of this House, for the State
of Rhode Island, in the room of Elisha R. Potter, who has resigned his
seat; and WILLIAM EDMOND, returned to serve in this House, as a member
for Connecticut, in the room of James Davenport, deceased, appeared,
produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House.

But a quorum of the whole number not being present, the House adjourned
until to-morrow morning, eleven o'clock.


TUESDAY, November 14.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, HARRISON G. OTIS;
from Rhode Island, CHRISTOPHER G. CHAMPLIN; from Connecticut, SAMUEL W.
DANA and CHAUNCEY GOODRICH; from Vermont, MATTHEW LYON; from
Pennsylvania, BLAIR MCCLENACHAN and RICHARD THOMAS; from Delaware, JAMES
A. BAYARD; from Virginia, RICHARD BRENT; from North Carolina, ROBERT
WILLIAMS; from South Carolina, WILLIAM SMITH; and from Georgia, ABRAHAM
BALDWIN, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

But a quorum of the whole number not being present, the House adjourned
until to-morrow morning, eleven o'clock.


WEDNESDAY, November 15.

Several other members, to wit: from New Jersey, JAMES H. IMLAY; from
Pennsylvania, WILLIAM FINDLAY; and from Maryland, WILLIAM HINDMAN,
appeared, and took their seats in the House.

And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being
present, the oath to support the Constitution of the United States was
administered, by Mr. SPEAKER, to the following new members, to wit:

ISAAC PARKER, THOMAS TILLINGHAST, and WILLIAM EDMOND, who took their
seats in the House on Monday last.

A message was then sent to the Senate, to inform them that a quorum of
the House is assembled, and were ready to proceed to business.


THURSDAY, November 16.

Several other members, to wit: from Vermont, LEWIS R. MORRIS; from New
York, JAMES COCHRAN, and EDWARD LIVINGSTON; from Virginia, MATTHEW CLAY,
THOMAS EVANS, WALTER JONES, ABRAM TRIGG, and JOHN TRIGG; and from North
Carolina, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.

And then the House adjourned until to-morrow morning, eleven o'clock.


FRIDAY, November 17.

Two other members, to wit: from New Jersey, MARK THOMSON; and from
Pennsylvania, JOHN A. HANNA, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.


MONDAY, November 20.

Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, JONATHAN FREEMAN and
WILLIAM GORDON; from New Jersey, JAMES SCHUREMAN; from Maryland, WILLIAM
MATTHEWS; and from Virginia, ABRAHAM VENABLE, appeared, and took their
seats in the House.


TUESDAY, November 21.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, DWIGHT FOSTER; from
New York, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT; and from Virginia, CARTER B. HARRISON,
appeared, and took their seats in the House.


WEDNESDAY, November 22.

Two other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, DAVID BARD, and SAMUEL
SITGREAVES, appeared and took their seats.


THURSDAY, November 23.

Two new members, to wit: WILLIAM C. C. CLAIBORNE, from the State of
Tennessee; and THOMAS PINCKNEY, returned to serve as a member of this
House for the State of South Carolina, in the room of William Smith,
appointed Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to the Court of
Lisbon, 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.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, THOMAS CLAIBORNE and JOHN
CLOPTON, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

_President's Speech._

The hour of twelve being near at hand, the SPEAKER announced it, and a
message was sent to the Senate to inform them that they were met, and
ready to receive the communications of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, agreeably to his appointment.

The members of the Senate attended accordingly, and about a quarter
after twelve the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (after visiting the
Senate Chamber) entered the House, accompanied by his Secretary and the
Heads of Departments, and being seated, rose and delivered the following
Address. (See Senate proceedings, _ante_.)

Having concluded his Speech, and delivered copies of it to the PRESIDENT
_pro tem._ of the Senate, and to the SPEAKER of the House of
Representatives, the PRESIDENT retired, the SPEAKER resumed the chair,
and the House being come to order, he, as usual, read the Speech from
the chair. This being done, on motion, it was referred to a Committee of
the whole House, and made the order for to-morrow. It was ordered also
to be printed.


MONDAY, November 27.

A new member, to wit: BAILEY BARTLETT, returned to serve in this House
as a member for Massachusetts, in the place of Theophilus Bradbury, who
has resigned his seat, 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.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, SAMUEL SEWALL; from
New York, DAVID BROOKS; from Maryland, JOHN DENNIS; from Virginia, JOHN
NICHOLAS and JOSIAH PARKER; and from North Carolina, THOMAS BLOUNT,
appeared and took their seats in the House.

_Address to the President._

Mr. OTIS, from the committee appointed to draft an Address in answer to
the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, reported the
following, which was twice read, and referred to a Committee of the
Whole for to-morrow:

      SIR: While our sympathy is excited by the recent sufferings
      of the citizens of Philadelphia, we participate in the
      satisfaction which you are pleased to express, that the
      duration of the late calamity was so limited, as to render
      unnecessary the expense and inconvenience that would have
      been incident to the convention of Congress in another
      place: and we shall readily attend to every useful
      amendment of the law which contemplates the event of
      contagious sickness at the seat of Government.

      In lamenting the increase of the injuries offered to the
      persons and property of our citizens at sea, we gratefully
      acknowledge the continuance of interior tranquillity, and
      the attendant blessings of which you remind us, as
      alleviations of these fatal effects of injustice and
      violence.

      Whatever may be the result of the mission to the French
      Republic, your early and uniform attachment to the interest
      of our country; your important services in the struggle for
      its independence, and your unceasing exertions for its
      welfare, afford no room to doubt of the sincerity of your
      efforts to conduct the negotiation to a successful
      conclusion, on such terms as may be compatible with the
      safety, honor, and interest of the United States. We have
      also a firm reliance upon the energy and unanimity of the
      people of these States, in the assertion of their rights,
      and on their determination to exert, upon all proper
      occasions, their ample resources in providing for the
      national defence.

      The importance of commerce, and its beneficial influence
      upon agriculture, arts, and manufactures, have been
      verified in the growth and prosperity of our country. It is
      essentially connected with the other great interests of
      the community. They must flourish and decline together; and
      while the extension of our navigation and trade naturally
      excites the jealousy, and tempts the avarice of other
      nations, we are firmly persuaded, that the numerous and
      deserving class of citizens engaged in these pursuits, and
      dependent on them for their subsistence, has a strong and
      indisputable claim to our support and protection.

      The delay of the Spanish officers to fulfil the treaty
      existing with His Catholic Majesty is a source of deep
      regret. We learn, however, with satisfaction, that you
      still indulge hopes of removing the objections which have
      been made to its execution, and that you have continued in
      readiness to receive the posts. Disposed to perform, with
      fidelity, our national engagements, we shall insist upon
      the same justice from others which we exercise towards
      them.

      Our abhorrence cannot be too strongly expressed of the
      intrigues of foreign agents to alienate the affections of
      the Indian nations, and to rouse them to acts of hostility
      against the United States. No means in our power should be
      omitted of providing for the suppression of such cruel
      practices, and for the adequate punishment of their
      atrocious authors.

      Upon the other interesting subjects noticed in your
      Address, we shall bestow the requisite attention. To
      preserve inviolate the public faith, by providing for the
      due execution of our treaties; to indemnify those who may
      have just claims to retribution upon the United States for
      expenses incurred in defending the property and relieving
      the necessities of our unfortunate fellow-citizens; to
      guard against evasions of the laws intended to secure
      advantages to the navigation of our own vessels; and
      especially, to prevent, by all possible means, an
      unnecessary accumulation of the public debt, are duties
      which we shall endeavor to keep in view, and discharge with
      assiduity.

      We regard, with great anxiety, the singular and portentous
      situation of the principal powers of Europe. It was to be
      devoutly wished that the United States, remote from this
      seat of war and discord; unambitious of conquest;
      respecting the rights of other nations; and desirous,
      merely, to avail themselves of their natural resources,
      might be permitted to behold the scenes which desolate that
      quarter of the globe with only those sympathetic emotions
      which are natural to the lovers of peace and friends of the
      human race. But we are led by events to associate with
      these feelings a sense of the dangers which menace our
      security and peace. We rely upon your assurances of a
      zealous and hearty concurrence in such measures as may be
      necessary to avert these dangers; and nothing on our part
      shall be wanting to repel them, which the honor, safety,
      and prosperity of our country may require.


TUESDAY, November 28.

SAMUEL SMITH, from Maryland, appeared and took his seat.

_Address to the President._

Mr. COIT moved for the order of the day on the reported Answer to the
PRESIDENT'S Speech.

The motion being agreed to, the House accordingly resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole upon that subject, and the Address having been
read through by the Chairman, it was again read by paragraphs. The first
four were read, without any objection being offered to them. The fifth
being gone through,

Mr. PINCKNEY said, he had to propose a small alteration to this clause:
he wished to make the latter part of it a little less harsh. Instead of
saying, "we shall insist upon the same justice from others," &c., he
thought it would have the same effect, and the terms would be less
objectionable, if the passage ran thus: "Nothing shall be wanting on our
part to obtain the same justice from others," &c. The expression used,
he said, might be perfectly justifiable, but, if we could obtain what we
wished without the possibility of giving offence, he thought that mode
ought to be preferred. It was on this account that he wished the
phraseology to be changed.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, as a member of the committee who reported the
Address, he did not feel tenacious as to the wording of it. At first, he
thought with his colleague, who proposed the amendment, that the word
_insist_ was rather harsh; but, upon a little reflection, his objections
to the phrase were removed. Indeed, he thought the proposed amendment
would make the passage stronger than it was in the original. They might
insist, he said, in argument; looking upon the treaty as a good one,
they might insist upon its execution; but if it were not to be effected
without going to war, they might afterwards relinquish it. The amendment
he thought more forcible. It said "nothing shall be wanting to obtain,"
&c.; which would be to say, we look upon the treaty as a good one, and
nothing shall be wanting on our part to obtain its fulfilment. The words
might even be considered to say, that we are determined to have the
treaty carried into effect, though war should be the price of the
determination.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) approved of the amendment of the gentleman from
South Carolina, but not from the reasons which that gentleman had urged
in support of it, but for those which his colleague had produced against
it; not because it was more smooth, but because it contained more of
decision and firmness. He thought, in this respect, this country had
been trifled with, and any opinion expressed by them upon this subject
ought to be done with a firmness of tone.

The question on Mr. PINCKNEY'S amendment was put and carried, there
being sixty-two members in the affirmative.

The remainder of the Address was then gone through, without further
observation.

Mr. OTIS, from the committee appointed to wait upon the PRESIDENT, to
know when and where it would be convenient for him to receive the
Address in answer to his Speech, reported that they had attended to that
service, and that it would be convenient for him to receive it at his
house to-morrow at twelve o'clock.


WEDNESDAY, November 29.

_Address to the President._

Mr. LYON said, when the motion was proposed yesterday on the subject of
waiting upon the PRESIDENT, he should have opposed it, only that he did
not wish to deprive some gentlemen of the gratification of attending the
ceremony; and now he hoped those gentlemen would consent to gratify him
by agreeing to a similar resolution to that of last session, excusing
him from an attendance upon the occasion.

Mr. MACON observed, that whether the resolution was agreed to or not,
the gentleman might doubtless remain behind if he chose, as he had no
idea that the House could compel members to go about parading the
streets of Philadelphia. The gentleman might have conscientious
scruples, and if the ceremony were meant to be respectful to the
PRESIDENT, members should attend it freely, or not at all. He should
wish, therefore, that gentlemen disinclined to do the service, would not
join it.

Mr. OTIS hoped the motion would not prevail. He presumed no gentleman
there was particularly anxious for the society of the gentleman from
Vermont on this occasion. No doubt he would grace the procession, but it
would be sufficiently long without him, and if he chose to remain
behind, he need be under no apprehensions of being called to account for
his conduct. It was not becoming the dignity of the House to pass the
resolution in question. It appeared to him that the gentleman was in
full health and spirits, and every way fit for business; and as the
House had resolved the thing should be done, he had no idea of admitting
the protest of an individual upon their journals against the measure.

Mr. GALLATIN said he should be in favor of the previous question, but
not for the reasons assigned by the mover of it, but for those offered
by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. MACON,) viz: because he did
not believe there existed any power in that House to compel any member
to wait upon the PRESIDENT with the Address; therefore it would be
improper to grant an indulgence to a member from doing what there was no
obligation upon him to do. He did not recollect the words of the
resolution which had been agreed to. [The SPEAKER repeated them. They
were, "that the SPEAKER, attended by the House of Representatives, shall
wait upon the PRESIDENT, &c."] This, Mr. G. said, must be understood in
a qualified sense, as the House of Representatives had no existence out
of those walls. When the SPEAKER presented the Address, the House was
not present; they could not debate nor do any act as a House. The
Address was, therefore, strictly speaking, presented by the SPEAKER,
followed by the members of the House of Representatives--as he did not
conceive the House had any power without the walls of the house. They
could, indeed, appoint committees to do business out of doors, but could
not call out the members as a body. Upon this ground he was, therefore,
in favor of the previous question.

Mr. LYON said, understanding the matter in the light in which it had
been placed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, he would withdraw his
motion.

The SPEAKER announced the arrival of the hour which the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES had appointed to receive the Address of the House in
answer to his Speech; and the SPEAKER, attended by the members,
accordingly waited upon the PRESIDENT, at his house, and presented to
him the Address: to which the PRESIDENT made the following reply:

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

      I receive this Address from the House of Representatives of
      the United States with peculiar interest.

      Your approbation of the meeting of Congress in this city,
      and of those other measures of the Executive authority of
      Government communicated in my Address to both Houses, at
      the opening of the session, afford me great satisfaction,
      as the strongest desire of my heart is to give satisfaction
      to the people and their representatives by a faithful
      discharge of my duty.

      The confidence you express in the sincerity of my
      endeavors, and the unanimity of the people, does me much
      honor, and gives me great joy.

      I rejoice in that harmony which appears in the sentiments
      of all the branches of the Government, on the importance of
      our commerce and our obligations to defend it, as well as
      in all other subjects recommended to your consideration,
      and sincerely congratulate you and our fellow-citizens at
      large on this appearance, so auspicious to the honor,
      interest, and happiness of the nation.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _November 29, 1797_.

The SPEAKER and members then returned to the House, and order being
obtained, the SPEAKER, as usual, read the Answer of the PRESIDENT from
the chair.


THURSDAY, November 30.

THOMPSON J. SKINNER, from Massachusetts, appeared, and took his seat.

_Memorial of Quakers._

Mr. GALLATIN presented the following memorial of certain citizens,
called Quakers, in the name of the annual meeting of that body, lately
held in Philadelphia.

      _To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
      States in Congress assembled_:

      The memorial and address of the people called Quakers, from
      their yearly meeting held in Philadelphia, by adjournments
      from the 25th of the 9th month, to the 29th of the same,
      inclusive, 1797, respectfully showeth:

      That, being convened, at this our annual solemnity, for the
      promotion of the cause of truth and righteousness, we have
      been favored to experience religious weight to attend our
      minds, and an anxious desire to follow after those things
      which make for peace; among other investigations the
      oppressed state of our brethren of the African race has
      been brought into view, and particularly the circumstances
      of one hundred and thirty-four in North Carolina, and many
      others whose cases have not so fully come to our
      knowledge, who were set free by members of our religious
      society, and again reduced into cruel bondage, under the
      authority of existing or retrospective laws; husbands and
      wives, and children, separated, one from another; which, we
      apprehend to be an abominable tragedy, and with other acts,
      of a similar nature, practised in other States, has a
      tendency to bring down the judgments of a righteous God
      upon our land.

      This city and neighborhood, and some other parts, have been
      visited with an awful calamity, which ought to excite an
      inquiry in the cause and endeavors to do away those things
      which occasion the heavy clouds that hang over us. It is
      easy with the Almighty to bring down the loftiness of men
      by diversified judgments, and to make them fear the rod and
      Him that hath appointed it.

      We wish to revive in your view the solemn engagement of
      Congress, made in the year one thousand seven hundred and
      seventy-four, as follows:

      "And, therefore, we do for ourselves, and the inhabitants
      of the several colonies, whom we represent, firmly agree
      and associate, under the sacred ties of virtue, honor, and
      love of our country, as follows:

      "Article 2. We will neither import nor purchase any slaves
      imported after the first day of December next, after which
      time we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will
      neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our
      vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those
      who are concerned in it.

      "Article 3. And will discountenance and discourage every
      species of extravagance and dissipation, especially
      horse-racing, and all kinds of gaming, cock-fighting,
      exhibitions of shows, plays, and other expensive diversions
      and entertainments."

      This was a solemn league and covenant, made with the
      Almighty in an hour of distress, and He is now calling upon
      you to perform and fulfil it; but how has this solemn
      covenant been contravened by the wrongs and cruelties
      practised upon the poor African race, the increase of
      dissipation and luxury, and the countenance and
      encouragement given to play-houses, and other vain
      amusements! And how grossly is the Almighty affronted on
      the day of the celebration of Independence! What rioting
      and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness! to the great
      grief of sober inhabitants, and the disgrace of our
      national character.

      National evils produce national judgments; we therefore
      fervently pray the Governor of the Universe may enlighten
      your understandings and influence your minds, so as to
      engage you to use every exertion in your power, to have
      these things redressed.

      With sincere desires for your happiness here and hereafter,
      and that, when you come to close this life, you may
      individually be able to appeal as a ruler did formerly:
      "Remember now, O Lord, I beseech thee, how I have walked
      before thee, in truth and with a perfect heart, and have
      done that which is good in thy sight."

      We remain your friends and fellow-citizens.

      Signed in and on behalf of the said meeting, by

                          JONATHAN EVANS,

                          _Clerk to the meeting this year_.

The memorial having been read by the Clerk,

Mr. GALLATIN moved that it be read a second time.

Mr. HARPER hoped not. This was not the first, second, or third time,
that the House had been troubled with similar applications, which had a
tendency to stir up a class of persons to inflict calamities which would
be of greater consequence than any evils which were at present suffered;
and this, and every other Legislature, ought to set their faces against
remonstrances complaining of what it was utterly impossible to alter.

Mr. THATCHER hoped the petition would have a second reading, and be
committed. It appeared to him that this would be the regular way of
getting rid of the difficulty which was apprehended. The gentleman who
had just sat down said, that this was not the first, second, or third
time, that the House had been troubled with similar petitions. This, he
said, was natural. If any number of persons considered themselves
aggrieved, it was not likely they should leave off petitioning, until
the House should act upon their petition. He thought this was what they
ought to do. If the Quakers thought themselves aggrieved, it was their
duty to present their petition, not only three, five, or seven times,
but seventy times, until it was attended to.

Mr. RUTLEDGE should not be opposed to the second reading and reference
of this memorial, if he thought the strong censure they deserved would
be the report of a committee. This censure, he thought, this body of men
ought to have; a set of men who attempt to seduce the servants of
gentlemen travelling to the seat of Government, who were incessantly
importuning Congress to interfere in a business with which the
constitution had said they had no concern. If he was sure this conduct
would be reprobated, he would cheerfully vote for a reference of the
present petition; but not believing this would be the case, he should be
for its laying on the table, or under the table, that they might not
only have done with the business for to-day, but finally. At a time when
some nations were witnesses of the most barbarous and horrid scenes,
these petitioners are endeavoring to incite a class of persons to the
commission of similar enormities. He thought the matter of the greatest
importance, and that the reference ought by no means to be made.

Mr. SWANWICK was sorry to see so much heat produced by the introduction
of this petition. He himself could see no reason why the petition should
not be dealt with in the ordinary way. If the petitioners asked for any
thing which it was not in the power of the House to grant, it would be
of course refused; but this was no reason why their petition should not
be treated with ordinary respect. In this memorial, he said, sundry
things were complained of; not only slavery, but several other
grievances. For instance, play-houses were complained of, whether justly
or not, he was not about to decide. With respect to the grievance
mentioned in North Carolina, something perhaps might be done to remedy
it, without affecting the property which gentlemen seemed so much
alarmed about. He could not suppose there was a disposition in the
House to violate the property of any man; there was certainly as strong
a disposition in the Middle States as in the Southern, to hold
inviolable the right of property; nor could he see any reasonable ground
for throwing this petition under the table. If these people were wrong
in their understanding of this subject, it would be best to appoint a
committee to set them right.

Mr. GALLATIN said it was the practice of the House, whenever a memorial
was presented, to have it read a first and a second time, and then to
commit it, unless it were expressed in such indecent terms as to induce
the House to reject it, or upon a subject upon which petitions had been
lately rejected by a large majority of the House. In no other case were
petitions rejected without examination and without discussion. He said,
without examination and without discussion, because it was impossible,
upon a single reading of a petition, to be able to form a sound judgment
upon it. Indeed, seeing the way in which the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) had treated the subject, no cool examination
could be expected at present; in the moment of passion it would be best
not to decide, but to send the petition to a committee. What was the
objection to this mode of proceeding? It was that the subject would
shake a certain kind of property. How so? A petition that reminds us of
the fate of certain blacks in this country, which did not refer to
slaves, but to free men. This petition was to shake property! In the
same manner it might be said that the law of Pennsylvania for the
gradual abolition of slavery had also a tendency to destroy that
property; or that the Legislative decision of the State of Massachusetts
that there shall be no slaves under their Government, would have that
effect. But it was said the characters of the petitioners was such as
they ought to brand with the mark of disapprobation.

In support of this charge, it was alleged that they were not satisfied
with petitioning, but they attempted to debauch and seduce servants--to
rob gentlemen of their property. He did not know to what the gentleman
who made this assertion alluded; but he believed, if the matter was
fairly stated, whatever may have been done in the State of Pennsylvania,
has been no more than an endeavor to carry into full effect the laws of
the State, which say, that "all men are free when they set their foot
within the State," excepting only the servants of Members of
Congress.[25] As to the moral character of this body of people, though a
number of their principles were different from those which he professed,
he believed it could not be said, with truth, that they were friends to
any kind of disorder; and he was surprised to hear gentlemen suppose
that they could or would do any thing which would throw into disorder
any part of the Union. On the contrary, he believed them to be good
friends of order. Mr. G. said he wished to have avoided a discussion of
the merits of the memorial; but when they were told it was improper to
do any thing on the subject, it became necessary. He knew it was in
their power to do something. They might lay a duty of ten dollars a head
on the importation of slaves; he knew a memorial had been presented at a
former session respecting the kidnapping of negroes, which had been
favorably reported upon. Finally, the present memorial did not apply
only to the blacks, but to other objects. With respect to plays, they
had a motion last session before them for laying a tax upon them, which
had a reference to the subject. By committing this memorial, they should
give no decision. If the committee reported they could do nothing in the
business, and the House agreed to the report, the matter would be closed
in a much more respectful way than by throwing the petition under the
table.

Mr. SEWALL said, the gentleman last up had stated two cases in which
petitions had been received without a commitment. He might have added a
third, more applicable to the present memorial. This was when a petition
was upon matter over which this House had no cognizance, especially if
it were of such a nature as to excite disagreeable sensations in one
part of the House, who were concerned in property which was already held
under circumstances sufficiently disagreeable. In such cases, they ought
at once to reject the memorial, as it would be misspending time to
commit it. If, for instance, a petition should be presented, complaining
that a person had refused to discharge an obligation to another, it
would be at once acknowledged that the House could not enforce the
obligation; but application must be made to a court of justice. So in
this case; the petitioners complain of a law of North Carolina. This
House, he said, could not change that law. If any thing was done there
contrary to right, the courts of that State, as well as those of the
United States, were open to afford redress. It was their business, and
not the business of that House. They did not come there to act upon
subjects agreeable to their feelings, but upon such as the constitution
had placed in their hands.

Mr. MACON said, there was not a gentleman in North Carolina who did not
wish there were no blacks in the country. It was a misfortune--he
considered it as a curse; but there was no way of getting rid of them.
Instead of peace-makers, he looked upon the Quakers as war-makers, as
they were continually endeavoring in the Southern States to stir up
insurrections amongst the negroes.[26] It was unconstitutional, he said,
in these men to desire the House to do what they had no power to do; as
well might they ask the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to come and take
the SPEAKER'S chair. There was a law in North Carolina, he said, which
forbade any person from holding either a black or white person as a
slave after he had been set at liberty. The one hundred and thirty-four
negroes alluded to in the petition, he knew nothing of. In the war, he
said, the Quakers in their State were generally Tories. They began to
set free their negroes, when the State passed a law that they should not
set them free. If these people were dissatisfied with the law, they had
nothing to do but transport their negroes into Pennsylvania, where, the
gentleman from that State had told them, they would be immediately free.
This subject had already been before the House, but they declined doing
any thing in it. It was extraordinary that these people should come,
session after session, with their petitions on this subject. They had
put play-houses into their memorial; but they had nothing to do with
them. In this State, he believed, the Legislature had passed a law
authorizing them. It was altogether a matter of State policy. The whole
petition was, indeed, unnecessary. The only object seemed to be to sow
dissension. A petition could not come there touching any subject on
which they had power to act, which he should not be in favor of
committing; but this thing being wrong in itself, it was needless to
commit it, as no single purpose could be answered by it.

Mr. ISAAC PARKER was of opinion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
(Mr. GALLATIN,) with respect to the disposal of petitions. But it
appeared to him that the subject matter of all petitions should be
within the view and authority of the House; if not, to refer them would
certainly be a waste of time. He had attended to the petition, and he
did not think there was a single object upon which it was in their power
to act. Nothing was prayed for. The petitioners speak of the slave
trade, and, in general terms, of the immorality of the times, as
injurious to the state of society; and wish some means may be taken to
prevent the growth of them. To refer a petition of this sort, therefore,
to a committee would answer no purpose. He did not think they were more
obliged to take up the business than if they had read the address in a
newspaper.

Mr. BAYARD said it might be inferred, from the anxiety and warmth of
gentlemen, that the question before them was, whether slavery should or
should not be abolished. The present was, however, very remote from such
a question, as it was merely whether a memorial should be read a second
time. The contents of this memorial, he said, were right or wrong,
reasonable or unreasonable; if right, it was proper it should go to a
committee; and if wrong, if so clearly absurd as it had been
represented, where would be the evil of a reference for a report
thereon? He did not like things to be decided in the moment of passion,
but from the fullest consideration. In some countries they knew persons
accused of crimes were condemned without a hearing; but there could be
but one sentiment as to the injustice of such a proceeding. There could
be no objection, therefore, upon general principles, to the reference of
this petition. But it was said it was not to be sent, because of the
general habits of this society. He believed there was no body of men
more respectable; they were obedient, and contributed cheerfully to the
support of Government; and, either politically or civilly speaking, as
few crimes could be imputed to that body as to any other.

This memorial, he said, had been treated as coming from an Abolition
Society--it was a memorial of the General Meeting of the people called
Quakers; and if only out of respect to that body, it ought to be
referred. But it was said it did not contain matter upon which the House
could act. Gentlemen seemed not to have attended to the subject-matter
of the petition. He did not believe that the House had the power to
manumit slaves, but he believed there was not a word in the petition
which had a reference to slavery. The petitioners state, indeed, that a
number of negroes, not slaves, for negroes may be free, had been taken
again into slavery, after they had been freed by their masters. He
wished to know whether the House had not jurisdiction over this matter?
He was warranted by the constitution in saying they had, because that
instrument says that no State shall make _ex post facto_ laws. It
belonged to that House, therefore, to see that the constitution was
respected, as it could not be expected from the justice of the
individual States, that they would repeal such laws. It rested,
therefore, with the Government of the United States to do it. Mr. B.
read the clause of the constitution touching this matter, and concluded
by reminding the House that this was not an ultimate decision, but
merely a reference.

Mr. JOSIAH PARKER said he was always inclined to lend a favorable ear to
petitioners of every kind, but when a memorial was presented to the
House contrary to the nature of the government, he should consent to its
lying on the table or under it. No one, he said, could say they had a
right to legislate respecting the proceedings of any individual State;
they, therefore, had no power to decide on the conduct of the citizens
of North Carolina in the matter complained of. Petitions had frequently
come from Quakers and others on the subject; whereas this Government had
nothing to do with negro slavery, except that they might lay a tax upon
the importation of slaves. He recollected, when the subject was brought
before the House in the first Congress held at New York, wishing to put
a stop to the slave trade as much as possible, being a friend of
liberty, he took every step in his power, and brought forward a
proposition for laying a tax of ten dollars upon every slave imported.
It was not agreed to; but there was only one State (Georgia) in which
the importation of slaves was admitted. Since the establishment of this
Government, Mr. P. said, the situation of slaves was much ameliorated,
and any interference now might have the effect to make their masters
more severe. He knew of no part of the constitution which gave them
power over horse-racing and cock-fighting, nor could they interfere with
respect to play-houses; and where they had no right to legislate, they
had no right to speak at all. As the session had begun harmoniously, he
hoped that harmony would not be broken in upon by such applications as
the present. Mr. P. produced a precedent from the journals of 1792,
where a memorial of Warner Mifflin, a Quaker, after being read, was
ordered to lie on the table, and two days afterwards returned to the
memorialist.

Mr. NICHOLAS felt as much as other gentlemen from the Southern States on
the subject of the present petition, but his feelings did not produce
the same effect. He was not afraid of an interference from the United
States with their property, nor of any investigations or discussions
respecting it. He believed it would be to the honor of people holding
property in slaves, that the business should be looked into. He thought
such an inquiry would rather secure than injure their property. He did
not think it was the interest of slaveholders to cover improper
practices. He was satisfied, that in the part of the country where he
lived, there was no disposition to protect injuries--no disposition to
reject an inquiry, or to refuse to understand a complaint. They had been
told that the state of the negroes, whose cases were mentioned in the
memorial, might be produced by the fugitive law; they had before heard
that this law had operated mischievously. It ought, therefore, to be
inquired into. On inquiry, Mr. N. said, it would not be found the fault
of the Southern States that slavery was tolerated, but their misfortune;
but to liberate their slaves at once, would be to act like madmen; it
would be to injure all parts of the United States as well as those who
possess slaves. It was their duty, however, to remedy evils; they were
unfortunately placed in a situation which obliged them to hold slaves,
but they did not wish to extend the mischief. He should, indeed, be
sorry if his possessing property of this kind, obliged him to cover the
violation of another man's right; if this were the case, he should think
it necessary that his property should be taken from him. He did not
think it necessary, and he doubted not, if a fair investigation took
place, that this kind of property would be brought into the situation in
which every man of sense would place it. He was firmly of an opinion,
that to appear to be afraid of an inquiry would do more harm to this
property than a fair investigation. He trusted, therefore, the petition
would be committed.

Mr. BLOUNT hoped this memorial would not be committed. As this was not
the first time the society of Quakers had come forward with petitions to
the House, seemingly with no other view than to fix an odium on the
State of North Carolina, he thought it his duty positively to contradict
a fact stated in this memorial. It was stated that 134 persons, set free
from slavery in North Carolina, had been since enslaved by cruel
retrospective, or _ex post facto_ laws; they alleged that certain
members of their society had done what no person was permitted to do.
Mr. B. read part of a law of North Carolina, stating "that no negro or
mulatto slave shall be set free, except for meritorious services,
acknowledged by a license of the court; and when any person shall be set
free contrary to this law, he may be seized and sold as a slave," &c. He
also read a clause from another law, passed afterwards, stating that
several persons having set at liberty their slaves contrary to law, and
persons having taken up and sold them, are doubtful of the validity of
the sale, and that this law is passed to do away all doubts of such
validity. Mr. B. said these extracts proved the assertion untrue.

Mr. GORDON lamented that this discussion had taken place, as it was
certain that wherever interest is concerned, some degree of warmth will
be produced; and when a petition was brought forward which might affect
the property of many gentlemen in this House, and their constituents, it
could not be expected they would hear it with the same calmness with
persons wholly unconcerned about it. All that had been advanced in favor
of the second reading of the petition was, the respectability of the
persons presenting it, the opinion that would be entertained of the
petitioners, if their petition was not referred, and the merits of the
petition itself.

With respect to the persons of the petitioners, he felt inclined to do
them every justice; but he did not think this any reason for acting upon
their memorial, unless some good consequence could arise from it, any
more than if they were the vilest persons on earth. As to the opinion
that might be entertained out of doors, as the petition was not
examined, he was not afraid that the citizens of the United States would
believe that the House could be so far lost to its duty as not to look
into a question of this kind, but that it would be conceived, if
rejected, that they had nothing to do with it. The other reason, the
only material one, was to the merits of the petition. The gentleman from
Delaware, (Mr. BAYARD,) who had examined the business with much coolness
and ability, had stated that a certain _ex post facto_ law of North
Carolina had occasioned grievances. Admitting there was such a law, what
could the House do? Could they declare a law of North Carolina null and
void? There would be no utility in this; but if there was a law in North
Carolina that violated the constitution, there was a clear remedy in the
law which organizes the Judical department of the United States, in
which it is said, if any law of an individual State interferes with a
law of the United States, a person has a right to take advantage of the
law of the United States. There was no necessity, therefore, to call
upon Congress for a remedy against this law. Indeed, he saw nothing in
this memorial which called for their interference, and he was therefore
against a reference, as a further discussion of it would only produce
uneasiness in certain parts of the United States, without producing any
good.

Mr. RUTLEDGE observed, that notwithstanding all that had been said,
considering the present extraordinary state of the West India Islands
and of Europe, he should insist that "sufficient for the day is the evil
thereof," and that they ought to shut their doors against any thing
which had a tendency to produce the like confusion in this country. If
this were not done, the confidence of a great part of the Union in the
General Government would be weakened. In the Southern States, where most
of their property consisted of slaves, and where the rest was of no
value without them, there was already a prejudice existing that the
Northern and Eastern States were inimical to this kind of property,
though they were bound by the constitution from an interference with it;
but when they heard of the House giving countenance to a petition like
the present, it would increase their uneasiness. He referred to what had
fallen from the gentleman from Delaware respecting _ex post facto_ law,
and thought a court of justice the proper tribunal to settle that
business. Mr. R. said he was indisposed, notwithstanding the high
panegyrics which had been passed upon the body of Quakers, to withdraw
the censures he had cast upon them. The gentleman from New York had
doubted the charges which he had produced, and said such things could
never be attempted by the body. It was true, they did not come in a body
into his lodging to seduce his servant, but individuals did it. But why,
he asked, do these men come here in a body? Because they believe that
their presence will give more weight to their petition; so that they
appeared in bodies, or as individuals, to answer their purposes.
Gentlemen had charged the opposers of the petition with heat; he thought
there was as much heat on one side as the other.

Mr. EDMOND did not believe there was any real ground of irritation in
the question; as no gentleman could suppose they were about to do any
thing which was either unconstitutional, or which would affect their
property. Whether the persons who presented the memorial are virtuous or
vicious, was of no consequence, since justice was due to both classes of
men. They had brought a petition before them, and they ought to consider
it. It was addressed to their honesty or justice; if the facts were
claims upon their honesty or justice they should be attended to; and not
only attended to, but, if possible, relief granted. It was stated that
there were a number of persons held in bondage who were justly entitled
to liberty.

This fact called for examination; and a question arose, if it were
established, whether that House could afford redress. A gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. BLOUNT) had stated that the fact was not true; it
was certainly, therefore, worth while to be inquired into. Another
gentleman had said, if the fact were as stated, they had no power to
act; and a third was of opinion that, by the constitution, redress might
be afforded. This diversity of opinion showed the necessity of an
investigation of the subject, in order to determine the jurisdiction of
the House. He wished it for another reason. It had been stated, that if
this petition were attended to, it would open a door to faction and
mischief. Can it have this effect? These people bring forward a petition
stating a number of facts; they certainly do not come forward for the
mere design of exciting disorder in any quarter. If the House say they
will throw their petition under the table, would not such treatment give
the factious some ground of clamor by which to sow dissension? But if,
on the contrary, they coolly looked into the petition, and reported
thereon, would it not stop the mouths of these people? It certainly
would; since they could not then say common justice was refused to the
petitioners. Again; having once investigated the subject fully, if
petitions of a similar kind should hereafter come forward, it would be
reasonably said, this matter has already been taken up and fully decided
upon; and, therefore, we will not again go into it. Until this was done,
the factious would doubtless have cause of complaint.

Mr. BLOUNT said, several gentlemen who had spoken on this subject seemed
to express themselves as if they believed there was no punishment for
individuals reducing to slavery persons who had been manumitted. He read
an extract from a law, passed in 1779, in North Carolina, by which the
punishment of death is awarded against such an offence.

Mr. MACON read the proceedings of the House on the petition respecting
the kidnapping of negroes, in order to show that the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LIVINGSTON) had misstated the issue of the business. The last
report on the subject was that it would be best to leave the regulation
of the subject to the Legislatures of the several States. Mr. M. allowed
that his reflections upon the whole body of Quakers were too general,
and he had no hesitation in retracting them; but he believed a number of
them were guilty of the charges brought against them by the gentleman
from South Carolina.

Mr. THATCHER said, if, when the motion was first made, he had been
against it, from what had fallen from gentlemen on the subject, he
should now be in favor of it; for, notwithstanding they opposed the
second reading of the petition, they were filing off in squads to read
it, and ready to fight for a sight of it. He believed, therefore, they
had some reasons for opposing the second reading, which did not appear.
He referred to what had been said by the gentleman from North Carolina,
as to the fact stated in the petition, and said that, notwithstanding
the laws which he had read, the fact might be true; but that this very
doubt about the fact was an additional reason for going into the
inquiry.

Gentlemen had said, however good and virtuous the petitioners might be,
it ought to have no effect upon the petition; if this were true, he
hoped when they were represented as the worst of men, that
representation was not meant to influence their decision on the
question. Mr. T. could not conceive for what purpose they were carried
to Europe, to witness the scenes which had taken place there for the
last ten years. Was this, he asked, the state of society? If he thought
so, if it had the faintest resemblance of what was taking place there,
he would fly from it to the uttermost parts of the earth, and there make
his habitation. Mr. T. wished an inquiry to take place; there was a part
of the United States in which slavery was tolerated--some of the members
from those parts thought it not right; there were other parts of the
Union which disclaimed it. These two opposing principles were like two
opposite powers in mechanism, which produced rest; but, the more
frequently the subject was looked into, the more mitigated would be its
effects.

The question was taken for the second reading of the petition, and
carried--53 votes being in the affirmative.

Mr. GALLATIN moved that it be referred to a select committee.

Mr. COIT wished it to be referred to the Committee of the Whole, to whom
was referred the petition on the subject of kidnapping negroes, &c.

Mr. RUTLEDGE thought a select committee would be best, as stage-plays,
cock-fighting, horse-racing, and other evils, would, of course, be
considered.

The question for reference to a select committee was put and carried--59
members being in the affirmative.

Five members being agreed upon to form the committee, the SPEAKER named
Messrs. SITGREAVES, NICHOLAS, DANA, SCHUREMAN, and S. SMITH, for the
purpose.

The House adjourned.


FRIDAY, December 1.

A new member, to wit: JOSEPH HEISTER, returned to serve in this House as
a member for the State of Pennsylvania, in the room of George Ege, who
has resigned his seat, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his
seat in the House.

Several other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, ANDREW GREGG; from
Kentucky, THOMAS T. DAVIS; and from North Carolina, NATHAN BRYAN, and
DEMPSEY BURGES, appeared and took their seats in the House.

The Clerk then informed the House that he had heard from a member of the
Senate that the SPEAKER was indisposed; so much so that he was not able
to communicate his indisposition to the House in writing.

Mr. DENT said, this being the case, he should move that the orders for
this day be further postponed till Monday; which motion being agreed to,
the Clerk, on motion, adjourned the House till Monday morning, at 11
o'clock.


MONDAY, December 4.

THOMAS SUMTER, from South Carolina, appeared, and took his seat.

_Publication of Debates._

Mr. DWIGHT FOSTER presented the petition of Thomas Carpenter, stating
that he was the editor of the _American Senator_, published during the
session of Congress ending in March last; that, at the commencement of
that session, he presented a memorial to the House, praying its support
of his work; that the House had declined supporting it as a body, but
receiving individual assurances of support from many of the members, he
had been induced to engage in the work; but the event had proved
unfavorable to him. He hoped now, therefore, that he should be
recompensed, by the House engaging to take three copies for each member
of the work he proposed to publish this session, (provided he met with
the support he prayed for,) which, computing the session at eighteen
weeks, he supposed would not amount to more than $2,250.

Mr. D. FOSTER moved that this petition be referred to a select
committee.

Mr. COIT objected to a reference. The House, he said, had so often
determined to have nothing to do with the publication of the debates,
that he thought it time to have done with the subject. He hoped,
therefore, the petition might lie upon the table.

Mr. FOSTER and Mr. THATCHER spoke in favor of the committal; and the
motion was put and carried, and a committee of three members appointed
to report thereon.


THURSDAY, December 7.

_Amy Dardin._

Mr. T. CLAIBORNE said, that during the last Winter, a report had been
made by the Committee of Claims, on the petition of Amy Dardin,
unfavorable to the petitioner, which, after full discussion, had been
disagreed to by the House; and on the 24th of February a motion for
appointing a committee to bring in a bill for her relief was made and
committed to a Committee of the Whole, but for want of time had not been
acted upon. He now wished to bring the matter before the House, and for
that purpose moved that a committee be appointed to bring in a bill for
the relief of Amy Dardin.

This motion met with opposition. It will, perhaps, be recollected that
this, though a strong claim, in point of justice, is directly in the
face of the Limitation Act. Messrs. MACON, SITGREAVES, and HARPER,
wished the matter to go again to the Committee of Claims, as many
members now in the House were unacquainted with the merits of the claim;
and the latter gentleman, because he thought the House had been
surprised into a decision, contrary to fifty other determinations on
similar questions, which ought now to be reversed.

Mr. CLAIBORNE opposed this course, and trusted the House would again be
influenced by the justice of the claim, to act as they had heretofore
done, by passing a bill for the relief of the petitioner.

Mr. GALLATIN thought it would be best to commit the business to the same
Committee of the Whole to which they had yesterday referred a report of
the Committee of Claims on the subject of excepting a certain
description of claims from the operation of that act.

The business was, however, closed by Mr. CLAIBORNE'S withdrawing his
motion for the present.


MONDAY, December 11.

Two other members, to wit: JAMES GILLESPIE and JOSEPH MCDOWELL, from the
State of North Carolina, appeared and took their seats.


TUESDAY, December 12.

_Acts of Limitation._

Mr. GALLATIN called for the order of the day on the report of the
Committee of Claims, to whom it was referred to inquire into and report
on the expediency or inexpediency of designating certain claims against
the United States to be excepted from the operation of the acts of
limitation; which being agreed to, the House accordingly resolved itself
into a Committee of the Whole on the subject, Mr. DENT in the chair. The
report was read, as follows:

      The Committee of Claims who were "instructed to inquire
      into, and report on, the expediency or inexpediency of
      designating certain claims against the United States, to be
      excepted from the operation of the acts of limitation,"
      report:

      That, in obedience to the orders of the House, they have
      made all the inquiries which to them appear necessary; that
      they have attentively and deliberately considered the
      subject referred to them; and are of opinion that it would
      not be expedient to designate any species of claims against
      the United States which are now affected by the acts of
      limitation, to be excepted from the operation of those
      acts.

      In considering this subject, a review of the situation of
      the United States, as respected their finances, during the
      period when most of the demands originated, was requisite.
      It was also necessary to ascertain what measures had been
      adopted by Congress, both under the old and under the
      present government, to bring all the demands against the
      States to a liquidation and settlement.

      It will be recollected, that, at the commencement of the
      war, the United States were destitute of money; and during
      a long period of years afterwards, were obliged to rely
      principally on credit, for carrying on all their important
      operations.

      Having, at that time, no settled National Government, a
      regular system for conducting public business, especially
      money transactions, depending on credit, was not to be
      expected.

      Great numbers of individuals were necessarily invested with
      the power of binding the public by their contracts. Almost
      every officer of the Army, whether in the Commissary's
      Department or otherwise, in different stages of the war,
      had it in his power to contract debts legally or equitably
      binding upon the United States. We find Congress, at
      various times, during the war, endeavoring to make
      arrangements which should prevent an undue use of the
      powers vested in individuals, and the dangerous
      consequences to which the Government was thereby
      necessarily exposed. The acts of the 5th of March, 1779,
      and of the 23d of August, 1780, were calculated to limit
      the public responsibility in such cases. After the peace,
      and under the old Government, periods were prescribed,
      within which claims of certain descriptions, and finally
      all unliquidated claims, were to be exhibited for
      settlement, or to be for ever thereafter barred.

      It must be acknowledged by all, that during those periods
      every provision which could rationally have been expected
      was made for the accommodation of individuals having claims
      against the public, to enable them to obtain proper
      settlements of their demands. The journals of Congress
      under the confederation will abundantly justify this
      remark.

      Commissioners were appointed, with special or general
      powers, to settle the claims of individuals in all the
      departments; and, in every instance, the powers given were
      plenary and explicit. Sufficient time was given for every
      one to obtain information and pursue his remedy; and ample
      opportunity was given for all to substantiate their claims,
      or, at least, to present abstracts of them, which would
      have prevented their being foreclosed by the acts designed
      eventually to operate upon them. The cases cannot be
      numerous, in which the want of opportunity to bring forward
      claims can be justly pleaded as an excuse for the omission.

      By the act of the 17th of March, 1785, all persons having
      unliquidated claims against the United States were
      required, within twelve months, to exhibit particular
      abstracts of such claims, to some of the Commissioners in
      the State in which they respectively resided, who were sent
      and empowered to settle accounts against the United States,
      under the penalty or condition that accounts not so
      presented, should be thereafter settled only at the
      Treasury.

      By another act of Congress, of the same year, viz: November
      2d, 1785, all persons having claims for services performed
      in the military department, were directed to exhibit the
      same for liquidation to the Commissioners of Army accounts,
      on or before the first day of August, then ensuing. By that
      act it was expressly resolved, that all claims, under the
      description above mentioned, which might be exhibited after
      that period, should be for ever thereafter precluded from
      adjustment and allowance.

      And it was provided, by the act of July 23d, 1787, that all
      persons having unliquidated claims against the United
      States, pertaining to the late Commissaries',
      Quartermaster's, Hospital, Clothier's, or Marine
      department, should exhibit particular abstracts of such
      claims to the proper Commissioner appointed to settle the
      accounts of those departments, within eight months from the
      date of the said act; and all persons having other
      unliquidated claims against the United States, were to
      exhibit particular abstracts thereof to the Comptroller of
      the Treasury of the United States, within one year from the
      date thereof; and all accounts not exhibited as aforesaid,
      were to be precluded from settlement or allowance.

      These regulations were adopted by Congress under the old
      Government. Great care was taken to have them extensively
      published, so that every individual who was interested
      might be informed of their existence and operation.

      Under the present constitution there has not been wanting a
      disposition to relieve certain individuals whose claims
      were considered as peculiarly meritorious, which had been
      affected by the acts above recorded.

      With this view, in March, 1792, two several acts of
      Congress were passed, suspending for two years the
      operation of the resolutions of Congress of November 2d,
      1785, and July 27th, 1787, so far as they had barred or
      might be construed to bar the claims of the widow or
      orphans of any officer of the late army, to the seven
      years' half pay of such officer; or the claims of any
      officer, soldier, artificer, sailor, and marine, of the
      Army of the United States, for personal services rendered
      to the United States in the military or naval departments.

      In consequence of these suspensions, many claims were
      exhibited, and allowed against the Government. There is
      reason to apprehend, in some instances, the public were
      defrauded for want of proper pre-existing checks and
      evidences of payments being made. This suspension continued
      for the term of two years, which was till March, 1794. In
      the mean time, viz: on the 12th of February, 1793, the act
      "relative to claims against the United States, not barred
      by any act of limitation, and which had not been already
      adjusted," was passed by Congress, after a serious and
      attentive consideration of the subject.

      By that law it was provided, "that all claims upon the
      United States for services or supplies, or for other cause,
      matter, or thing, furnished or done, previous to the 4th
      day of March, 1789, whether founded upon certificates,
      written documents from public officers, or otherwise, which
      had not already been barred by any act of limitation, and
      which should not be presented at the Treasury before the
      first day of May, 1794, should for ever after be barred and
      precluded from settlement or allowance." But this was not
      to be construed as affecting Loan Office certificates,
      certificates of final settlements, indents of interest,
      balances entered on the books of the Register of the
      Treasury, registered certificates, foreign loans, or
      certificates issued under the act making provision for the
      public debt of the United States.

      One other act, passed the 3d day of March, 1795, provided
      that Loan Office certificates, final settlements, and
      indents of interest, then outstanding, should be presented
      at the office of the Auditor of the Treasury, on or before
      the first day of January, in the present year, 1797, or be
      for ever after barred or precluded from settlement or
      allowance.

      The summary contains a general view of the principal acts
      of limitation, by which claims against the public have been
      affected.

      From an attentive consideration of them, and of the
      circumstances under which they were enacted, the committee
      are fully impressed with an opinion that it would not be
      expedient to suspend their operation.

      Some remarks extracted from a report heretofore made to
      Congress, are subjoined by the committee, as pertinent to
      the subject.

      It was essential to the public administration that the
      extent of just demands upon the Government should be,
      within a reasonable period, definitely ascertained. It was
      essential to public safety and to right, in relation to the
      whole community, that all unsettled claims should be made
      known within a time when there were yet means of proper
      investigation, and after which the public responsibility
      should terminate, and the possibility of charging the
      Government by collusive and fictitious contracts, should be
      at an end.

      The justice as well as policy of acts of limitation, under
      such circumstances, cannot be doubted.[27]

      The situation of no country ever presented a more clear
      necessity for, or a more competent justification of,
      precautions of that nature. And all the reasons for
      adopting them operate to recommend unusual caution in
      departing from them, with the additional force of this
      circumstance, that the subsequent lapse of time has
      increased the difficulties of a due examination.

      The accounts of a considerable number of officers, who had
      it in their power to bind the public by their contracts,
      and who were intrusted with large sums of money for
      fulfilling their engagements, remain unsettled. Some of
      those persons are dead; others have absconded; the business
      has been conducted by others with so little order as to
      put it out of their power to render a proper statement of
      their transactions. The books and papers of others, who had
      extensive trusts, have been destroyed, so as to preclude
      the possibility of settlement. Hence it must appear that
      the Government would, in a great number of cases, be
      destitute of the means of repelling unfounded and even
      satisfied claims, for want of documents and vouchers, which
      only could have resulted from a due settlement with those
      officers, and from the possession of their books and
      papers.

      It might be inferred without proof, and it has appeared in
      the course of business at the Treasury, that it was a
      practice with certain public officers, on obtaining
      supplies, to give receipts and certificates for them, and
      when they made payments, either partially or totally, to
      take distinct receipts from the parties, without either
      endorsing the payment upon the original vouchers or
      requiring a surrender of them.

      Hence it would often happen that parties could produce
      satisfactory vouchers of their having performed services
      and furnished supplies, for which, though satisfaction may
      have been made, the evidences of it would not be in the
      possession of the Government. And hence, from relaxations
      of the limitation acts, there would be great danger that
      much more injustice would be done to the United States than
      justice to individuals.

      The principles of self-defence, therefore, require and
      justify an adherence to those acts generally; and there are
      not any particular species of claims, which, in view of the
      committee, ought to be exempted from their operation.

      Those which have been most frequently referred to by some
      members of the House, are such claims as include the
      arrearages of pay and other emoluments to officers and
      soldiers of the late army, &c.

      Pursuant to an order of the House at the first session of
      the present Congress, a report was made to them, having
      special reference to this subject. It was considered in
      Committee of the Whole, and agreed to by the House on the
      fifth day of February, 1796. To that report and the
      documents accompanying the same, the committee ask leave to
      refer the House, and respectfully submit the whole subject
      to their consideration.


WEDNESDAY, December 13.

JOHN WILKES KITTERA, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in
the House.


FRIDAY, December 15.

A new member, to wit, PELEG SPRAGUE, from New Hampshire, in place of
Jeremiah Smith, resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.


THURSDAY, December 24.

_Amy Dardin._

Mr. T. CLAIBORNE moved that the report of the Committee of Claims, on
the petition of Amy Dardin, be referred to a Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER said, that the report having been negatived at a former
session, and a bill brought in for her relief, but not decided upon, the
proper motion would be to appoint a committee to bring in a bill.

Mr. CLAIBORNE made that motion, which Mr. COIT moved to be referred to
the Committee of Claims, in order that they might report the facts
relative to the case, which were not generally known.

Mr. CLAIBORNE objected to this; and

Mr. BALDWIN suggesting the propriety of committing it to the same
Committee of the Whole, to whom were referred the subject of considering
the expediency of excepting certain claims from the operation of the
limitation acts, this course was adopted.


FRIDAY, December 22.

_General Kosciusko._

Mr. DAWSON wished to call the attention of the House to a subject,
which, he doubted not, would interest the feelings of every member. The
subject he alluded to was the situation of General Kosciusko. It was a
fact well known to every man in this country, it was a fact known to the
world, that this brave man entered into the service of the United
States, at an early period of our Revolutionary war. When this service
was ended, he received from the Government a certificate of what was due
to him. He returned to Poland, his native country; there, animated by
the same spirit which had led him to take a part in our struggle for
independence, he endeavored to overthrow the existing tyranny, and to
introduce in its place liberty and independence. For some time his
attempt seemed likely to be crowned with success; but, on the fatal 10th
of October, 1794, overpowered by numbers, he was defeated and taken
prisoner. Covered with wounds and with glory, he was conducted to the
prison of Petersburgh. When he was released from thence, he immediately
set out to this country, here to spend the remainder of his life. He was
now within this city; but, from the wounds he had received in his
arduous but unsuccessful conflict, he was unable to walk or to attend to
any business. The unfortunate day on which he was taken prisoner, he
lost his all, and with it the certificate of the services rendered to
the United States. He was unable, therefore, to obtain a settlement of
his account at the Treasury. To set aside all difficulty in the matter,
Mr. D. proposed to offer a resolution to the consideration of the House;
and as it was justice only which he sought for this brave man, he
doubted not that a spirit of justice would ensure its adoption. It was
to the following effect:

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire and
      report whether any, and, if any, what provisions are
      necessary, to obtain payment of the claim of Gen. Kosciusko
      on the United States."

Mr. J. PARKER seconded the motion. He hoped the resolution would be
agreed to, and that immediate attention would be paid to the unfortunate
gentleman, as he believed, except he made use of the grant made to him
by the Emperor of Russia, which, he believed, he was disinclined to do,
for considering his predecessor as the chief cause of his own
misfortunes, and those of his country, he did not wish to be under
obligations to him. The certificate given to the General on his
departure from hence, was for $12,800, upon which he had received only
one year's interest. He hoped, therefore, as he had the misfortune to
lose his certificate, at the time he was taken prisoner, that the House
would take such measures as should enable him to receive the amount of
his certificate, with the interest due thereon.

Mr. COIT moved that the resolution should be committed to the Committee
of Claims, but afterwards changed his motion so as to make that
committee the committee to inquire and report, instead of a select
committee. He professed to have no other object in these motions than
that this claim should take the same course with other claims.

The motion was supported by Messrs. ALLEN, J. WILLIAMS, MACON, and
EDMOND. It was opposed by Messrs. J. PARKER, LIVINGSTON, GALLATIN,
BROOKS, NICHOLAS, HARPER, SHEPERD, OTIS, PINCKNEY, SWANWICK, S. SMITH,
T. CLAIBORNE, and MCDOWELL.

The motion for a reference to the Committee of Claims was lost--59 to
33.

Mr. PINCKNEY said, that as this claim was different from most others
which came before that House, and having himself had something to do in
the business, he would state to the House what he knew of it. Previous
to General Kosciusko's return to Poland, whilst he was in Germany, he
applied to the Polish Ambassador in London, by letter, requesting him to
make application to the American Minister there for payment of a part of
the money due to him from the United States. The mode of transacting
this business was this: The interest arising from the certificate
granted to the General, was made payable in Paris; but from the change
which took place in the French Government, the General did not know how
to receive it there, which was the reason of his making application,
through the Polish Minister, to him (Mr. P.) in London. Mr. P. wrote to
the American Minister in Paris for an order on the bankers of the United
States in Holland, but having in the mean time received a letter from
Gen. Kosciusko, requesting the money to be sent for him to Ratisbon or
Leipsic, he (Mr. P.) sent an order to Amsterdam, requesting the bankers
there to transmit the money either to Ratisbon or Leipsic, as the
exchange should be most advantageous. In the interim General Kosciusko
returned to Poland, and he supposed he then had no time to attend to
this business. He never heard any more upon the subject until he saw the
General in Philadelphia, when he found this money had not been received
by him; so that he supposed it yet lay in the hands of the Leipsic or
Ratisbon banker.

Finding this to be the case, Mr. P. immediately wrote to the banker at
Amsterdam, requesting him to redraw the money, and to transmit it here
for the General's use. But, as he might, in the mean time, stand in
need of it, it might be proper in the United States to anticipate its
return, by settling the account with the General. He hoped in whatever
way this business was effected, it would be in such a way as not to
wound the feelings of a man who had deserved so well of this country.

On a suggestion of Mr. SITGREAVES, instead of appointing a committee,
the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to make a report what
"Legislative provision was necessary, &c."

This motion was carried by 49 to 40; but whatever difference of opinion
there was in the House, as to the mode of doing the business, there
seemed to be but one sentiment, as to the propriety of complying with
the spirit of the resolution.


WEDNESDAY, December 27.

SAMUEL JORDAN CABELL, from the State of Virginia, appeared, and took his
seat.

_Count de Grasse._

Mr. LIVINGSTON, from the committee to whom was referred the petition of
the daughters of the late Count de Grasse, made a report, which stated
that the sum heretofore allowed by Congress was intended only as a
temporary provision, until the events of the war should permit them to
take possession of an estate in St. Domingo; that the facts formerly
stated showed that the most important services were rendered to the
United States by their father, from motives the most honorable, under
the greatest responsibility, and at a risk the most hazardous that could
be encountered by an officer of rank and reputation; that, with a
recollection of these services, it would consist neither with the honor
nor justice of the United States to refuse an adequate provision for the
orphan children of the man who rendered them. The committee, therefore,
recommended that a certain sum should be granted to each of them,
annually, for their lives. The report was twice read, and committed for
Monday.


THURSDAY, December 28.

_Gen. Kosciusko._

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter and report from the Secretary
of the Treasury, in pursuance of a resolution of the House, of the 23d
instant, relative to the claim of General Kosciusko. The report states,
that the accounts of the General were settled at the Treasury in 1784,
when a certificate was issued to him for $12,280 49, bearing an interest
of six per cent. from the 1st of January, 1784, which was stipulated by
a resolution in February following, in common with the interest due to
all the foreign officers, to be paid annually at Paris; that in May,
1792, moneys were granted by Congress to discharge the principal and
interest of these debts, at which time it was supposed that all the
officers had received their interest to the 1st of January, 1789; but it
now appears by the banker's account at Paris, that no interest had been
received by General Kosciusko for four years, viz.: from 1785 to 1788.
Sufficient funds to pay the interest from 1789 to 1792, were, in 1792,
placed in Amsterdam, subject to the disposal of our Minister at Paris;
that by his direction a bill for the amount was remitted to Mr. Pinckney
in London; but, pursuant to the direction of General Kosciusko, Mr.
Pinckney wrote to the banker at Amsterdam to remit the amount to Leipsic
or Dresden. That in September, 1792, a notification was published, that
provision had been made for paying the principal of the debt due to
foreign officers, on application at the Treasury, after the 15th of
October following, and that the interest upon their demands would cease
after the last day of December in that year. That though the certificate
issued to the General is stated by him to have been lost or destroyed,
yet the powers of the officers of the Treasury are competent to the
payment of $12,280 54, the principal, and $2,947 33 interest, for the
years from 1785 to 1788, on receiving a bond of indemnification from the
General: but that they cannot advance the interest supposed to have been
remitted to Leipsic or Dresden, though payment will be immediately made
for any sum which may be hereafter redrawn, and credited to the United
States at Amsterdam; nor is it in the power of the Treasury to allow any
interest on said principal since the 1st January, 1793.

On motion of Mr. DAWSON, this report was referred to a Committee of the
Whole for Monday.


TUESDAY, January 2.

JOHN FOWLER, from the State of Kentucky, appeared and took his seat.

_General Kosciusko._

Mr. DAWSON moved the order of the day on the report of the Secretary of
the Treasury on the claim of Gen. Kosciusko; which motion being acceded
to, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. KITTERA
in the chair, and the report having been read,

Mr. DAWSON said, when he had the honor of presenting this business to
the House, he hoped the proposition he then submitted would have been
agreed to in that way, which, in his opinion, would have been most
honorable to the United States, and most agreeable to the person
concerned. In this hope he had been disappointed; but, though they
differed as to the mode of doing the business, there was but one opinion
as to the business itself. He had now a resolution to submit to the
consideration of the House, which he trusted would meet with no
opposition. It would be found, by the report of the Secretary of the
Treasury, that the accounting officers were ready to pay to General
Kosciusko $12,280 principal, and $2,947 interest, from 1785 to 1788. To
recover those two sums, therefore, there would have been no occasion for
application to that House. It also states, that a bill had been
remitted to our Minister at London, for the interest from 1789 to 1792,
but which money was afterwards, by direction of the General, ordered to
be remitted to Leipsic or Dresden; but it did not appear that this order
had been complied with. It was clear, however, it was never received by
him, nor had he given any person a right to receive it. He hoped,
therefore, as the money lay at Amsterdam, Leipsic or Dresden, and could
at any time be got by the United States, there would be no objection to
pay the General that sum at this time. It was further stated in the
report, that in September, 1792, a notification was published, informing
all the foreign officers that provision was made at the Treasury for the
payment of the principal of their debts, and that the interest thereon
would therefore cease after the last day of December in that year. Upon
examination he did not find that this arrangement was founded upon any
law; it was, therefore, a regulation agreed upon by the Treasury
Department, and ought not to operate to the injury of persons who were
ignorant of it. It was well known, that, from the peculiar situation of
General Kosciusko at the time, that he could not hear of it; and the
truth was, he never did hear of it until he arrived in this city. He
hoped, therefore, there would be no objection to the payment of the
amount of the certificates, with interest to the present time. To effect
this purpose, he proposed the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that
      the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized and directed to
      pay to General Kosciusko, the interest of six per cent. per
      annum, on $12,280 54, the amount of the certificate
      received by him from the United States, and now lost, from
      the 1st of January, 1789, to the 31st day of December,
      1797."

This resolution was opposed by Messrs. MACON, COIT, and J. WILLIAMS.
They were opposed to interest being paid up to the present time, and
wished, if any provision were made for paying interest beyond the time
fixed by the notification of the Treasury, that the regulation should be
a general one, and extend to all other foreign officers. They were also
against paying the interest, which had been transmitted to Paris for
General Kosciusko's use, and which, by his direction, was afterwards
remitted to Leipsic or Dresden, as it most probably lay there, and would
be paid to his order without their interference.

The motion was advocated by Messrs. VENABLE, PINCKNEY, J. PARKER,
HARPER, GALLATIN, and T. CLAIBORNE, and was finally agreed to without a
division.


WEDNESDAY, January 3.

_Duties on Distilled Spirits._

PEACH BRANDY.

Mr. HARPER moved the order of the day on the bill to amend the several
acts for laying a duty on spirits distilled within the United States,
and on stills; which motion being agreed to, the House resolved itself
into a Committee of the Whole on the subject, Mr. KITTERA in the chair.
The bill having been read,

Mr. MACON said, that the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, on
the proposition for allowing distillers to take licenses for a week,
having been referred to that committee, if it were taken up at all, this
was the proper time. He should, therefore, propose an additional section
to the bill, to embrace this objection.

Mr. M. accordingly presented a section to allow of weekly licenses.

This motion produced a considerable debate. It was opposed by Messrs.
SEWALL, GRISWOLD, GALLATIN, GORDON, and BROOKS, on the ground that the
duty now paid upon spirits distilled from fruit (which description of
distillers the regulation was avowedly intended to accommodate) was not
equal to that paid by distillers of grain, as the duty on spirits
distilled from fruit was not more than two and a half cents per gallon,
whilst that on spirits distilled from grain paid seven cents; and if the
amendments were agreed to, this inequality would be increased--for
persons who took a license for a week, by preparing their materials
beforehand, and working night and day, would finish their business
within that time, which otherwise would have required a fortnight; by
which means the duty would be reduced from six cents per gallon, on the
capacity of their stills, to four; that it would increase the temptation
to fraud, as that temptation was strong, or the contrary, in proportion
to the length of time for which a license was taken; as a person taking
a license for a fortnight, by working his still one day past the time
specified in his license would gain half a cent a gallon on the capacity
of his still, whilst he who took out a license for six months would only
gain half that sum. If licenses for a week were allowed, the temptation
would therefore be increased; that such a regulation would greatly
augment the duties of excise officers, without rendering any material
advantages to individuals--since, if the owner of a still of fifty
gallons took out a license for a fortnight, when a week might have
served, he would only pay a dollar more than he would have paid for a
week; that when this scale of duties was made, reference was had to the
situation of persons who would be obliged to take out a license for a
fortnight, though they might not have fruit to employ a still more than
a few days, and a rate proportionably low adopted; that the same reasons
which were urged for allowing licenses for a week might be urged for
allowing one for two days; that, though there might be some
inconveniences experienced by the distillers of fruit, (as it was not
doubted there might be in other parts of the law,) yet, as it was only
just got into operation, it would not be right to enter into the
proposed regulation, but defer it to the period when it would most
probably be necessary to go into a review of the whole law.

The motion was supported by Messrs. MACON, HARRISON, HARPER, J. PARKER,
NICHOLAS, VENABLE, R. WILLIAMS, NEW, DENNIS, T. CLAIBORNE, and CLAY. It
was asserted that the law as it now stood excluded four out of five of
the owners of orchards, in the Southern States, from distilling their
early fruit at all; that their peaches ripened hastily, and as hastily
rotted, if not made use of. Persons who had only fruit to employ their
stills for three or four days, sooner than take a license for a
fortnight, suffered their fruit to rot; and to allow licenses for a week
would produce a considerable augmentation of the revenue, since those
persons only would take such a license, who, if that privilege were not
allowed, would not take out a license at all, or such as had occasion to
distil a few days longer after their two weeks' license was expired. It
was unjust to require a man, who had only a small orchard, and occasion
to use a still but a few days, to pay a much higher duty upon his brandy
than his more opulent neighbor. It was not so inconsiderable an object
as gentlemen supposed, since it had not reference to one license
only--farmers in the Southern States having occasion to take out
separate licenses for their early, their middle, and their latter
fruits; and this regulation would not open a door to fraud, as was
supposed. It was an undeserved imputation upon the characters of persons
concerned in this business, to suppose they could be tempted to defraud
the revenue for the sake of half a cent per gallon upon what they could
distil in a day. The penalties consequent upon fraud, if the virtue of
the persons concerned could not be relied upon, were sufficient to guard
against them; and, if they were not, it could not be expected, as some
gentlemen seemed to suppose, that the excise officers should overlook
the conduct of every distiller. If they were to be so inspected and
scourged, an attempt to defraud the revenue could scarcely be blamed;
and, except it were the intention of gentlemen to crush this domestic
manufacture, no reasonable objection could be urged against the
proposition. The objections which had been urged proved the ignorance of
gentlemen in respect to this branch of business; for though the excise
officers would have some trouble in issuing licenses, it was believed
they would be well satisfied to encounter it, since their profits were
in proportion to the quantity of spirits distilled; and though this law
had been but a short time in being, the last season, having been a
scarce fruit season, had given a good opportunity of trying it. As the
application for this amendment was seconded by the whole of the Southern
country, it was entitled to respect, and ought not to be branded with
being a fraudulent design upon the revenue.

In the course of the debate, Mr. GALLATIN called upon gentlemen
acquainted with the subject, to say what was the quantity of spirits
which could be distilled from peaches in a week by a still of the
capacity of thirty, forty or fifty gallons, with a view to show that
this species of spirits paid less at present than spirits distilled from
grain.

Mr. CLAY answered this inquiry, by saying, that a still of fifty gallons
would distil from five to seven gallons of brandy a day. If the weather
was wet, and the peaches rotted quickly, not more than five; but when
the weather was dry, and the peaches sound, seven gallons might be
produced.

The question on the amendment was at length put and carried--45 to 37.

Mr. DENNIS said, he wished to try another principle in this bill. The
law at present required an annual entry of stills, whether they were
used or not, which occasioned persons frequently to ride twenty or
thirty miles to make the entry, when they had no intention to make use
of their still; and not unfrequently, from not meeting with the officers
at home, this journey was taken two or three times over. Indeed, he
believed, more penalties had been incurred on account of this regulation
than any other, and he looked upon it as a useless regulation. When a
still was once entered, he thought it was sufficient, and no future
entry ought to be required, except when a still was about to be made use
of, or when it was transferred into other hands. Mr. D. proposed a
section to this effect; but after some objections to the introduction of
so important a provision into this bill, (which before it could be
decided upon would require considerable discussion,) by Messrs. HARTLEY,
GALLATIN, and HARPER, he agreed to withdraw it for the present.

It having been agreed to fill the blank of the sum per gallon to be paid
on the capacity of a still, when a license was taken for a week, with
_four cents_, the committee rose; the House took up the amendments,
agreed to them, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading to-morrow.


FRIDAY, January 5.

_Count de Grasse._

Mr. LIVINGSTON called for the order of the day on the bill for granting
an annuity to the daughters of the late Count de Grasse; which being
agreed to, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the subject, Mr. DENT in the chair; and, after a number of desultory
observations, the blanks were filled up, viz: the time for which the
annuities should continue was fixed at five years, and the sum per annum
to be allowed at $500 each. The first question was determined by a
considerable majority, there being 57 votes in favor of it; the latter
was carried--46 to 38.

The committee then rose and reported the amendments. They were all
agreed to without a division, except the sum to be allowed per annum.
When that question was put,

Mr. J. WILLIAMS hoped it would not be agreed to. When the subject was
before under discussion, the question on $500 and $400 had been
negatived. $500 a year for the four daughters for five years, he said,
would be $10,000. He thought this a very serious sum. He again adverted
to the situation of many of our own citizens, and called for the yeas
and nays upon the question.

Mr. HARPER asked whether, if, when the Count de Grasse was solicited to
remain with the fleet under his command in the Chesapeake, at his own
risk and responsibility, he had asked as a condition that on some future
day $10,000 should be granted to his daughters, would it not have been
complied with, if it had been ten times that sum? And ought his
descendants to be more hardly dealt with because their father had the
generosity and magnanimity not to make the demand? He trusted not.[28]

After some observations in favor of concurring with the Committee of the
Whole in their vote, by Messrs. THATCHER, BROOKS, LIVINGSTON, and
GORDON; and against it by Messrs. VARNUM, MCDOWELL, and MACON--the
former of whom said that the clergy, in his part of the country, had not
more than three hundred and thirty dollars a year; and the latter
gentleman produced three cases of our own citizens who had lost their
lives in the service of the United States, whose families had been much
more hardly dealt with, viz: the family of a Lieutenant Colonel, who had
four hundred and fifty dollars a year granted them; that of a Major,
three hundred dollars a year; and that of the Marshal of Georgia, whose
family had a grant of two thousand dollars. The yeas and nays were
taken--40 to 43.

The question for allowing five hundred dollars a year being negatived,
four hundred was proposed and carried--46 to 34.

The question being on the bill being engrossed for a third reading, Mr.
BLOUNT called for the yeas and nays upon it. It was carried--55 to 25.


MONDAY, January 15.

LEMUEL BENTON, from the State of South Carolina, appeared, and took his
seat.

_Expenditure for Naval Service._

Mr. LIVINGSTON called up for consideration and decision the resolution
which he had laid upon the table a few days ago, for the appointment of
a committee of inquiry into the expenditure of money which had been
appropriated for the naval service.

The House having agreed to take up this business--

Mr. HARPER said, he believed that the appointment of such a committee
was very unusual, without having some ground stated to the House for the
proceeding. A vote of this kind would imply a censure upon the conduct
of our public officers, which certainly ought not to be done hastily, or
without first having, at least, some ground of suspicion laid before
them upon which to act. The House had not yet received the statements
which had been called for relative to this business; they were directed
to be laid before the House in the last week in January, and might,
therefore, be soon expected.

[Several gentlemen said it was the first, and not the last week in
January, in which the accounts had been ordered to be laid before the
House.]

Mr. H. said the delay, he supposed, had been occasioned by the officers
having been obliged to remove from the city during the fever. He had,
however, been informed that these statements would be ready in a few
days. And would it not be extraordinary, he asked, if, before they
received these statements, they were to appoint a committee of inquiry?
He thought it would. He believed the officers of this department of
Government were very desirous of the inquiry taking place; but this was
not a sufficient reason for the House to proceed in the business without
having first some ground to suppose the money had been misapplied, and
this he believed could not be ascertained until the expected statements
were before the House. When these were looked into, it was possible the
House might be satisfied with respect to the expenditure of the money,
and it would, therefore, be improper to appoint a committee to inquire
into a matter which might so shortly appear satisfactory. If, on the
other hand, these accounts should not be satisfactory, he would readily
concur in the appointment of a committee of inquiry.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, the gentleman from South Carolina ought to
recollect that the inquiry was produced by a further appropriation being
called for. It might be best to defer the inquiry until the accounts
which had been called for were laid before the House; and he should have
been satisfied with the business taking that course, if a further
appropriation had not been called for in the mean time. But when they
are called upon to appropriate a further sum of money for any object, it
was natural to inquire what was become of that already voted; and the
only way of doing this was to appoint a committee who would look into
all the different statements which had from time to time been laid
before the House, and those which might shortly be communicated, and
state their opinion thereon to the House. He thought those gentlemen who
were most friendly to the frigates ought not to oppose the appointment
of a committee; because, if it should appear that the money had been
justly expended, there would be little objection to a further
appropriation.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, from the full discussion of this subject, which,
though incidentally produced, had taken place on a former occasion, he
did not think it would either have been becoming or necessary to have
again stated the reasons which gave rise to this resolution, especially
as he felt an aversion to say any thing which might be unnecessary, or
which might tire those who heard him. Mr. L. said, that he had before
observed that the patience of the House had been worn out by the
repeated applications which had been made for money for this object;
that the expense had exceeded all belief; that the most extended
imagination could not have conceived an amount like that which Congress
had from time to time been blindly led to appropriate. But the
proposition was objected to, because it would cast an odium upon our
officers. This he was perfectly indifferent about. Whatever might be the
private opinion he had of the characters of these officers, however
incapable he might believe them of doing wrong, or of acting corruptly,
yet, when his duty called upon him to make an inquiry into the
expenditure of public money, he was deaf to all considerations of a
private nature. But, in this case, he did not see the necessity for this
remark. The House had been told (he believed by the gentleman from South
Carolina himself) that the extraordinary expense had been occasioned by
our inexperience in business of this kind, by the high price of labor,
materials, &c. If this were the case, the result of the inquiry would be
honorable to those concerned, and highly satisfactory to the House. It
was a proceeding which our public officers ought to wish for; nay,
gentlemen say they do wish for it.

But, Mr. L. said, it had been alleged, that the statements ordered a
year ago to be laid before the House during the first week in this
month, should be waited for before any inquiry took place. He would
reply, if these officers had not, in the mean time, called upon the
House for a fresh supply of money, this inquiry would not have been
thought of. Besides, the accounts asked for last year would not give the
satisfaction required. The request only extended to all the expenditures
previous to the 1st of January, 1797. The House would wish to know what
had been expended since, and they had no reason to expect further
information than was asked for. Mr. L. said every member who was present
at the time must remember that whenever the House had been applied to
for further appropriations, they had been told that the frigates would
be ready for sea at such and such a time; and that they would then bear
our flag triumphantly over the ocean. And yet, though the House had been
four or five times deceived by these representations, they were told
there was no ground for inquiry. For his part, he should consider
himself as neglecting his duty were he not to call for this inquiry
immediately; for, if the House were to wait a week for the statements
called for, they might wait another for their being printed; they might
then be found to be deficient, fresh statements might be necessary, and
the session might expire without effecting the wished-for inquiry. He
thought all parts of the House ought to favor the inquiry; for, he
believed, if it should appear that frigates could not be built for less
than $500,000 a piece, the project of a navy ought to be given up; but
if, on the other hand, difficulties and expenses had occurred in the
commencement of this business, which would not return, and their
frigates may in future be built for half the sum, (which was his
opinion,) there would be some encouragement to proceed in the business.

Mr. SEWALL was sorry that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER)
had given the occasion, and that the gentleman last up had so eagerly
seized it, to thwart any measures which might be necessary for the
general defence, by ridiculing the resources of the country. The
present, he said, was a time of danger and apprehension, and thus to
talk of the resources of the United States added to the apprehension and
the danger. The gentleman from South Carolina had said, that to pass
this resolution would be to pass an odium upon our public officers. He
did not think so. He thought an inquiry of this kind at all times proper
where there was any doubt as to the expenditure of money. He agreed with
the gentleman from New York, that the inquiry (if it had a favorable
issue, which he did not doubt) would forward the design of providing a
navy; as it would appear that the extraordinary expenses had been such
as it would not be necessary to incur in future. He was, therefore,
sorry to hear the gentleman from New York first up (Mr. WILLIAMS) say he
should be disinclined to vote any further appropriation until he saw how
the last had been expended. However improvidently the money already
appropriated had been expended, yet, in order to secure what had been
voted, and to keep the work in progress, they ought to vote a further
sum, as soon as wanted, whether the statements called for were received
or not.

Mr. LIVINGSTON desired to know wherein he had attempted to ridicule the
resources of this country? The gentleman from Massachusetts must excuse
him when he asserted he had never made a more hasty or unfounded charge.
If he had either ridiculed the resources, or thwarted any measures for
the general defence of the United States, it must have arisen from a
weak judgment, and not from any intention of doing so. But he was
certain nothing which had fallen from him could be so construed.

Mr. SEWALL acquitted the gentleman from New York of any intention of
lowering the appearances of the resources of this country; but he
appealed to the House whether he had not spoken of this fleet with a
degree of ridicule, when he represented it as governing the ocean. It
appeared so to him at least.

Mr. HARPER again insisted upon the impropriety of going into this
measure, from reasons similar to those which he had already given.

Mr. GALLATIN said, that the ground taken by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. HARPER) would prevent any inquiry whatever; for he stated
that the House ought not to pass the present resolution, because certain
statements had not been received, and because to pass it would be to
imply a censure on our officers. So that on this ground no inquiry could
be gone into without statements, as the House could not obtain
statements without passing a resolution, that resolution would be
construed into a censure, and therefore ought not to be passed. This Mr.
G. thought a very improper doctrine. It would never be in the power of
the House to decide upon the propriety of statements by barely having
them laid upon the table.


MONDAY, January 15.

_Naval Expenditure._

Mr. GALLATIN stated the different estimates which had been made to the
House. In 1794, he said, they were told that $688,000 would be
sufficient to build six frigates. In 1796, they were informed there had
been a mistake in the matter, but that with $80,000 more three would be
finished. In January, 1797, the House was again called upon for
$172,000; in July, in the same year, for $200,000, and now for $150,000
more. Such calculations, he thought, wholly unaccountable.

Mr. NICHOLAS did not understand what the gentleman from Connecticut
meant by saying that this was wholly Executive business. He did not
believe, because the PRESIDENT had told the House that he was about to
hold a treaty, that the money must be granted, and that the House had no
choice whether they would appropriate it or not. From what had already
been said upon the subject, he doubted not there was a pretty general
disposition to grant the money; but it was not proper that the Message
should be sent to the Committee of Ways and Means, as if an
appropriation was a thing of course; to do this, would be to act at the
_command_ of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; whereas the House could
only act upon the full exercise of its discretion. He therefore moved
that the Message be referred to the Committee of the Whole, which had
already this subject under consideration.

Mr. GALLATIN believed the gentleman from Connecticut had not considered
this subject with his usual correctness. That gentleman had said that
the Message before them ought to go to the Committee of Ways and Means,
and that an appropriation should follow as a thing of course. It must be
known that this was contrary to the practice of that House, or of any
former Legislature of the United States. On the contrary, it was usual,
first to authorize an expense, and in the next place to appropriate; and
in no case had the business been reversed. If the Message were referred
to the Committee of Ways and Means, all they could do, would be to bring
it back to the House, and ask for an authority for the expense. He
believed the gentleman from Connecticut had been led into this mistake
by considering the Message announcing the intention of the PRESIDENT to
hold a treaty as a treaty made; and had that been the case, according to
that gentleman's known opinion, he would consider the House as bound to
make the necessary appropriation; but he desired him to recollect that
no treaty was yet made; and, therefore, that that doctrine could not
apply in the present case.

Mr. RUTLEDGE did not believe it was necessary or proper for that House
to authorize the PRESIDENT to hold a treaty; but if it were necessary
for him to hold a treaty, the concurrence of that House was necessary to
enable him to do it, as it could not be done without money. It was
requisite, therefore, to pass a bill, not to authorize the PRESIDENT to
hold a treaty, but to enable him to do it. It was best, therefore, for
the communication first to go to the Committee of the Whole, and
afterwards to the Committee of Ways and Means, in order for them to say
where the money could be got. There was something in this case which
pointed out this mode as peculiarly proper, as there seemed to be a
disposition in the House, if the treaty should not succeed agreeably to
the wishes of the PRESIDENT, to afford temporary relief to the persons
now suffering from being driven from their land. The gentleman from
Connecticut had said, that the Committee of Ways and Means could report
an estimate of the probable expense which would be incurred in holding
the treaty; but if he attended to the Message of the PRESIDENT, he would
find that this estimate was to be laid before the House by the proper
department, so that there was no necessity of a reference to any
committee for that purpose.

The motion for a reference to the Committee of the Whole was carried,
without a division.

_William Alexander._

On motion of Mr. GREGG, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on
the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of William
Alexander, surveyor of Army lands. After reading a number of papers
relative to the subject, the report, which went to authorize the
Treasury to settle the accounts of the petitioner, was agreed to, the
committee rose, the House concurred, and a bill was directed to be
brought in accordingly.

_General Kosciusko._

Mr. PINCKNEY, from the committee appointed to confer with the Senate on
the disagreement between the two Houses on the bill for the payment of
interest to General Kosciusko, reported, that finding the business could
be settled in a manner equally advantageous to the General, by agreeing
to the amendment of the Senate, as by the mode originally proposed, the
committee recommend it to the House to recede from their disagreement to
the Senate's amendment.

The recommendation was concurred in by the House.

_Civil Appropriation for 1798._

On motion of Mr. HARPER, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole on the report of the Committee of Ways and Means for providing
for the expenses of the civil department for the year 1798, and the
blanks being filled (except in a few cases, in which they were left in
blank) according to the estimate which had been laid before the House,
the committee rose, the House concurred, and the bill was ordered to be
reported accordingly.


THURSDAY, January 18.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Secretary of
War, enclosing an estimate of the appropriations necessary for holding a
treaty with the Cherokee Indians, which was in substance as follows:

For three commissioners, ninety days, at
  eight dollars per day                       $2,160
Incidental expenses of do.                       360
Secretary, at four dollars per day               360
Rations of two thousand Indians               15,000
Presents to the Indians                        5,000
Stores for the commissioners                   2,000
Incidental expenses                            1,200
                                              ------
                                              25,880
                                              ======

This statement was referred to the Committee of the Whole to whom was
referred the former Message of the President on this subject.

_Persons Imprisoned for Debt._

The following Message, with the papers to which they refer, was received
from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      A representation has been made to me, by the Judge of the
      Pennsylvania district of the United States, of certain
      inconveniences and disagreeable circumstances, which have
      occurred in the execution of the law passed on the 28th day
      of May, 1786, entitled "An act for the relief of persons
      imprisoned for debt," as well as of certain doubts which
      have been raised concerning its construction; this
      representation, together with a report of the Attorney
      General on the same subject, I now transmit to Congress,
      for their consideration, that if any amendments or
      explanations of that law may be thought advisable, they may
      be adopted.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _January 18, 1798_.

This Message, with the papers accompanying it, was referred to the same
Committee of the Whole to whom was referred the report on the petition
of William Bell.

_Diplomatic Intercourse Bill._

Mr. NICHOLAS inquired with what sums the blanks in the bill were to be
filled.

Mr. HARPER said he proposed to fill the first with $40,000, and the last
with $28,650.

Mr. NICHOLAS conceived this to be a good time for the House to attempt
to bring back the establishment of the diplomatic corps to the footing
on which it was settled at the commencement of the Government, and
continued down till the year 1796; and to prevent in future the probable
increase which he apprehended from the recent examples, he thought it
necessary to take a view of this subject, not only from the increase of
expense, but from a variety of other considerations. It is not the
manner in which a Government is constituted which makes its operations
easy and certain. But the execution of the powers of the Government
itself is no more to be considered than the nature of its formation; for
I do believe there is a tendency in all Governments like ours to produce
a union and consolidation of all its parts into the Executive
department; and that the limitation and connection of the parts with
each other, as settled in the constitution, would be destroyed by the
influence I have mentioned, unless there is a constant operation on the
part of the Legislature to resist this overwhelming power. I think we
have the most convincing proofs that a representative Government can be
made most oppressive and burdensome, and yet preserve all the forms
which are given to it by a constitution; and the Legislature shall
appear to act upon its own discretion, whilst that discretion shall have
ceased to exist. Where the Executive has an influence over the
Legislature, and the Government is a representative one, the Executive
is capable of carrying its views into effect in a manner superior to
what can be accomplished even in the most despotic monarchy; the
mischief will be carried farther in the former case than in the latter,
because the people will be more inclined to submit to the decisions of a
Government of its own choosing than to one which rules them by
hereditary right; monarchs cannot carry their oppressions so far,
without resistance, as republics. Under this general view of the
subject, he conceived it to be the duty of the Legislature to guard
cautiously its own independence, and to limit, as far as consistent with
the general welfare, the influence of Executive patronage.

He conceived that this extension of influence of one branch of the
Government over another was strictly guarded by the constitution, which
was framed on the principle of checks and balances--of departments
acting and controlling each other; but he was sorry to see the idea of
patronage drawn into a closer compass than it had formerly been, as it
increased the evil. He was sorry for it, because it tended to manifest a
circumstance which had been sought to be concealed. Every insinuation
that there was a division between the Government and the people had been
repelled as an insidious and malignant design; but the Administration,
by acting on a new principle, which he was too well assured was the
fact, had established the idea that there was a division between it and
a considerable portion of the people. The evidence of this fact had been
long shown, and he feared the operation of circumstances of this nature
on the public mind.

He gave it as his opinion on our foreign intercourse, that the United
States would be benefited by having no Ministers at all. He did not
think that we could be benefited by any sort of compact these foreign
agents could form for us, for we only bound ourselves by any treaty we
entered into, as we are totally incapable of enforcing the execution of
the stipulations made by other nations by any offensive measures. It
might be thought necessary to make commercial arrangements with some
European powers; but, he asked, if they had the force to make a foreign
country conform to its engagements? No gentleman would say that they
had; therefore such regulations only tended to entangle ourselves,
without rendering commerce any efficient aid. He would, therefore, leave
our commerce to seek its own markets totally disembarrassed. All the
protection we could furnish it with, consisted in officers of another
grade than those mentioned in this bill: Consuls who should reside in
the seaports, and not Ministers Plenipotentiary residing in the
interior.

He did not intend by the motion he was about to make, that the whole
diplomatic establishment should be destroyed at this time, but merely to
reduce it to what it had been before the late increase. With this view
he proposed to alter the bill so as to direct that there should be
appropriated $9,000 for a Minister Plenipotentiary at London, and $9,000
more for another near the French Republic, and that the PRESIDENT be
left at liberty to reduce the Ministers Plenipotentiary at Berlin,
Madrid, and Lisbon, to Ministers resident, which would diminish their
salaries one-half--a resident Minister being of a lower grade has only
$4,500 per annum. He then went into a detail of the proceedings of the
first Congress, in order to show that it was admitted on all sides by
that body, that the constitution vested the power of specifying and
limiting the salaries of foreign Ministers and Consuls; he read the
speeches of Mr. LAWRENCE, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. W. SMITH, of South Carolina,
Mr. SEDGWICK, Mr. HUNTINGTON, and several others, from the Congressional
Register, by which it appeared, that there was but one opinion on their
powers under the Constitution; and showed from hence, that the only
reason why the House did not undertake to enumerate and fix the salaries
of foreign Ministers in detail, arose merely from the want of
information as to the places where they should be fixed, and the sum
necessary to cover their expenses. As his construction corresponded with
that of the gentleman who fixed the principles upon which the Government
was put in motion, he was encouraged to expect his motion would succeed,
seeing that the House had now had sufficient experience to enable them
to say what were the regulations proper to be made.

Mr. HARPER supposed it would be remembered by all those gentlemen who
had attended to the business of Congress for several years past, that
the doctrine of the gentleman from Virginia was by no means new. The
subject of foreign intercourse was never taken up, without that
gentleman, or some other who agreed with him in sentiment, advancing
these opinions; they never failed to speak of the danger to be
apprehended from Executive influence, from its power to appoint foreign
Ministers; that foreign intercourse was unnecessary; that our public
affairs abroad were not to be attended to, and that commerce ought to be
given up, or left to shift for itself. Nor was this a doctrine confined
to this country, or this age. Whenever a set of gentlemen in any country
found their views opposed by the measures of Government, they became
vexed, and attributed the proceedings of those who differed from them in
opinion to any motive rather than the public good. The desire of
Executive favor, or Executive offices, was an usual charge, and it was
at this day well understood. It would also be remembered, that whenever
the subject of foreign intercourse had been discussed, though these
objections had been constantly made to it, they had been as constantly
disregarded by the Congress of the United States. The good sense of the
country had weighed these objections in the balance, and declared them
wanting; and he trusted the same fate would now meet them as heretofore.

In aid of the $40,000 per annum, originally granted for this purpose,
Mr. H. said, various supplementary appropriations had been made. First,
a sum of $20,000, then a sum of $23,000, and, in March last, $17,000,
and, in addition to this, $14,000 for a particular appointment. The
House had, therefore, not only deemed it expedient to continue the
original act, but to make additional appropriations from year to year.
He thought the good sense of the country had never been more firmly
shown than on this subject. But now a new course was to be taken, and
all former proceedings declared to have been wrong. But it was said this
country had no need of foreign ministers, and that commerce might be
left to itself. He did not believe the House would think so. Did not the
United States trade with all the nations of the earth? How, then, was it
possible to do without accredited agents to attend to our concerns in
foreign countries? Were we to give up our commerce? There were
gentlemen, he knew, who would answer, Yes. They would tell the House,
commerce was a bad thing, and that it rather ought to be outlawed than
protected. But was this the sense of the country? Was it the sense of
that House? Would they discard the property of that class of citizens
who depended upon it for their support and their wealth? Or would they
be ready to forfeit the revenue arising from it? Mr. H. said he had
often heard of the dangerous nature of foreign intercourse; but it was
the discovery of a few men who believed that every thing which had been
done by this Government had been radically wrong. He trusted, however,
the House would adhere to what it had so frequently sanctioned, and that
the proposed amendment would not be agreed to.

Mr. GALLATIN believed that there were a number of people in the United
States--people otherwise enlightened, and who, upon all common subjects,
possessed sound understandings--who were fully convinced that there was
a faction existing within the United States, and even within the walls
of that House, who wished to demolish the Government; and he further
believed that this opinion was supported by such declarations as had
been made by the gentleman from Connecticut. He should be sorry that
such a belief should be considered as dangerous to the safety of the
community. Nor could he consider the determination of the Executive to
employ only such persons as are of the same political opinions with
themselves, as of such a nature as to produce fatal consequences, and
that Government, on that account, was unworthy of confidence. He
believed that such a line of conduct must flow from the present state of
parties in America, divided as the people were upon many important
occasions. To say, therefore, that the Executive employed persons of
consonant political opinions to its own, was not to say the Government
did not deserve confidence. But if the committee turned their attention
to the amendment proposed, it only went to declare that ministers to
London and Paris should not have a salary of more than $9,000 a year;
and that ministers to other parts of Europe should not have more than
$4,500. In support of this amendment, it was said that this was the
ground upon which this Government first fixed the business of foreign
intercourse. He believed this statement correct. Until the year 1796,
there was no minister plenipotentiary except at Paris and London; at
other places there were no higher grades than ministers resident. Hence
the committee might be led to argue the propriety of bringing back our
foreign political intercourse to what it was before that period. He said
foreign political intercourse; because he thought the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) had blended two subjects together, viz:
foreign commercial intercourse, and foreign political intercourse. He
did not believe it was the opinion of any gentleman in that House that
commerce ought to be left to shift for itself, unattended to. He
believed it was well understood that our commerce in foreign countries
was attended to by our consuls and not by our ministers plenipotentiary;
and consuls would exist if we had no ministers at all. Therefore, all
that gentleman's arguments, which tended to show that the amendment
would affect our commercial intercourse, had no foundation whatever.

Returning to the question of foreign political intercourse: Was it
proper to bring it back to what it was eighteen months ago? And, before
he proceeded further, he would observe that, though the gentleman from
South Carolina had been tolerably correct in his statements of the
business, he was mistaken in one point, in which he would set him right.
He had stated that the first additional appropriation was $20,000; but
this sum was not appropriated for foreign intercourse, but for defraying
the expense of the suits of our merchants in London. On the first of
January, 1796, there remained a balance of unexpended appropriation for
this object, of $30,000. To that day no extraordinary appropriation had
been made; the whole allowance was $40,000 a year, which was found to be
more than sufficient. On the 28th of May, 1796, an estimate was sent by
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, stating the sums already
appropriated for foreign intercourse, and that $23,500 were yet wanting,
in order to change the establishment which had till that day existed, by
sending Ministers Plenipotentiary to Madrid and Lisbon, instead of
Ministers Resident. This estimate, he just stated, was received on the
28th of May, and the law received the signature of the PRESIDENT on the
first of June, so that it could not have received a very full discussion
(being passed just as the session was about to close) and he thought
there was good reason for examining the thing again. The next
appropriation was made in the second session of the fourth Congress. In
that session, he allowed, the additional appropriation was passed after
full discussion. It was made upon an estimate stating $17,900 wanted;
and, during last session, an appropriation was made for a Minister to
Berlin, of $13,500.

The committee had been told that it would evince great versatility if
they were all at once to change what had already been done. But it must
be recollected, than when the change in the system was first made, it
underwent little discussion; and he would venture to say, that our
business abroad was as well done from the year 1786 to 1796, as it had
been done since. As the question was whether a larger or a smaller sum
of money should be appropriated, he would call upon gentlemen in favor
of the larger sum, to show what benefit was derived from Madrid and
Lisbon by the change; what necessity there was for a Minister at Berlin,
and what good was to be derived from giving a larger salary than $4,500.
The gentleman from Connecticut had said, why send a Minister
Plenipotentiary to London or Paris, any more than the other Courts? This
was done at first, and the mover, he supposed, wished not to innovate
upon the law as originally passed.

But they were told it was improper, upon this floor, to say any thing
about patronage, and that all arguments of that kind are well
understood, and are by no means novel in their nature; that such
complaints are made under all forms of Government by discontented people
out of office. To say that these complaints are well understood, was
the same as to say that the ground upon which they complained was also
well understood: it was to acknowledge, that persons who were in the
favor of the Executive had some advantages which persons in the other
party desired or envied. To admit of one position, was to admit of the
other. But, if no particular advantage was to be derived from
Governmental patronage, then the cause of jealousy, according to this
doctrine, must cease.

Our Government, he said, was in its child-hood; and if this patronage
had any existence, it could not of course be as yet alarming. But he
desired gentlemen to look at all Governments where this power was placed
in the Executive, and see if the greatest evil of the Government was not
the excessive influence of that department. Did not this corruption
exist in the Government which was constituted most similarly to ours, to
such a degree as to have become a part of the system itself, and without
which, it is said, the Government could not go on? Was it not,
therefore, prudent to keep a watchful eye in this respect? He did not,
however, speak against the power itself; it was necessary to be placed
somewhere. The constitution had placed it in the Executive power. If the
same power had been placed in the Legislature, he believed they would
have been more corrupt than the Executive. He thought, therefore, the
trust was wisely placed in the Executive; and though it was right to
keep grants of money within proper bounds, in order to prevent the abuse
of power, yet it was proper to grant all that was necessary.

Mr. G. concluded, by saying, that if he thought it was proper that our
political intercourse should be extended, he should not support the
amendment; but as the conviction was strong upon his mind that our
foreign political intercourse had at least been as expensive as it ought
to be; that it was owing, in a great degree, to our political
intercourse with foreign nations, that our present critical situation
was produced; that this intercourse produced more evil than good to us;
that he wished to bring the business back to the state in which it stood
in 1796. If the wisdom of future Legislatures shall think proper to
abolish the establishment of foreign political intercourse altogether,
it must be left to them to decide. He himself thought it would be going
too far to do so at present. He believed, situated as we were, it was
necessary to have some political intercourse; but he believed it would
be best, by degrees, to decline it altogether.

Mr. SITGREAVES.--The constitution and laws of the country had made
certain offices necessary, and left it to the Executive to fill them as
he pleased; and was it for that House to attempt to control this
discretion? If it were executed to the injury of the people, the
constitution had pointed out the remedy to be by impeachment. But where
was the crime, the offence, or the impropriety, of the conduct ascribed
to the Executive, if it had been adopted? Would gentlemen say that the
Executive ought to appoint persons to office who professed an opinion
contrary to its own? Did gentlemen suppose that there was such a want of
integrity in this department of Government, that it adopted a political
opinion which it did not believe to be right? And, if it were believed
to act from principle, would it be prudent or right to admit to a
participation in the execution of the important duties of Government
persons whose sentiments were not in unison with those of the Executive,
and who could only create discord and confusion, where nothing but
harmony and union ought to prevail? If the Executive acted upon just
principles, it would endeavor to give singleness of design to its
operations, and it could only do this by admitting persons into the
Government who thought with it. This would be a right, prudent, and
honorable conduct; and where it had been deviated from (as he had before
observed), Government had received an awful lesson for its future
conduct.

The question whether that House had the power to interfere with the
Executive authority, by withholding appropriations, had been fully
discussed in a former Congress, and the opinion of the country was not
now to be fixed on this subject. For that part of the House who thought
the constitution had not vested them with the authority of controlling
the Executive, it was sufficient to say that the Executive had thought
it necessary to introduce the change in the diplomatic department, which
was complained of, and that they felt themselves bound to carry his
determination into effect; but those who think that the House of
Representatives may control the Executive in this respect, will of
course act accordingly.

Mr. BALDWIN said he perceived there was a real difference of opinion
between the gentleman last up and himself. The gentleman supposed the
diplomatic establishment was fixed by the Executive, and the Legislature
had nothing to do with it but to provide the money. Every person must
see, even from a cursory view of the constitution, that this was
designed to be a Government of departments, Legislative, Executive, and
Judicial, to be kept distinct as far as possible. It was the business of
the Legislature to establish offices by law; it was the business of the
Executive to fill those offices. It would appear, from tracing back the
law, now proposed to be continued, that it originated in this manner. He
had not been notified of the subject as being likely to be called up
to-day, and was not prepared to be as particular as he could wish as to
facts. He had endeavored to refresh his recollection since it had been
under discussion, and he found that it originated from the Speech of the
PRESIDENT, at the opening of the second session of the first Congress,
in which he said, "that the interests of the United States required that
our intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by such
provisions as will enable me to fulfil my duty in that respect; 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 law." This part of the Speech was referred to a committee,
and from that originated this law. Want of information, at that early
time in the Government, prevented their being as particular as they
wished. They fixed a sum to each grade, and a sum beyond which the whole
amount should not extend; limited the law to a short period, that it
might be open to be corrected by experience. The present motion, if he
had understood it, proposed now to be a little more particular in the
establishment, by fixing the sum for particular places--to do the very
thing then recommended by the PRESIDENT. The same has always been the
intention of every succeeding Congress, which was the reason why they
continued it only for short periods, leaving it open to such amendments
as should be suggested by experience. These ideas of the offices being
first to be established by law, appeared not only to be the sense of the
former PRESIDENT, and of each succeeding Congress, as he had stated, but
appeared also to be the opinion of the present PRESIDENT. At the last
session he thought that a higher grade of office was necessary at
Algiers: this he stated in a message to Congress--that as there were
great expenditures of money on that coast, he thought it necessary that
an establishment should be made which would enable him to appoint a very
confidential person, on whom the other officers there should be
dependent, and who should control their proceedings and expenditures.
Congress concurred in this opinion, passed a law for the establishment
of the office, and then the Executive appointed the officer. For these
reasons he considered the question within their proper powers, and
fairly open to their deliberation.

At the close of the revolutionary war, the disposition of forming many
treaties, and having extensive diplomatic connections with European
powers, was carried even further than it has been since. It was among
their first national acts, and discovered marks of youth and
inexperience; a few years convinced them that they had gone too far,
that this country had little to expect from treaties, and much to lose,
and that many diplomatic connections were more frequently the cause of
perplexity and embarrassment, than of any national advantage. The
Congress under the articles of confederation were extricating themselves
from that policy as fast as possible; as these expired in course, they
were careful not to renew them. For several of the last years of that
Congress he well recollected that clusters of candidates for these
appointments, supported by powerful interests and connections, were
uniformly resisted; and, if he mistook not, when this Government came
into operation, this country had but one Minister in Europe. The
conviction on this subject was so strong, and experience had so fully
settled it as the true policy, that it remained immoveable for some time
after organizing the present Government. All appropriations for foreign
Ministers were refused at the first session, as far as he recollected.
At the second session it was urged, in the Speech of the PRESIDENT, as
before stated, and enforced by more particular explanations to
individuals, as designed to be for temporary purposes, respecting the
Northern forts and the property that was withheld. Under these
explanations a law passed, as before explained. It was true, this policy
had been of late, in some measure, departed from. He thought experience
had already been useful to them in this course also, and ought to
administer caution to them in seeking to intermingle in European
politics. Ambassadors and Ministers cannot be entirely indifferent to
the characters and events with which they are constantly surrounded; the
share they take is very apt to be exchanged between the countries to
which they belong. He did not wish to be too particular on that point;
he was persuaded facts enough presented themselves to the recollection
of every member, to confirm his remark. It might be said that on this
also we have an awful lesson. If evil had been experienced from this
cause, he hoped it would operate as a reason to endeavor to diminish it.
He thought it not unreasonable for the House to interpose their
restraining power as to granting money, and the more particular
establishment of the officers, and thus aid the other departments of the
Government in bringing back, by degrees, this part of our policy to its
former principles, so well sanctioned by experience. Whether the present
motion was well timed, or whether it was best to give it another short
limitation, before we went into a definite establishment, was another
question, on which he was willing to hear more remarks. Informed as he
was at present, he should vote for the motion, and thought they might
make some amendments to the former bill, already suggested by
experience, and which would be useful.

The committee rose, and had leave to sit again.


FRIDAY, January 19.

_Foreign Intercourse._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
bill providing the means of foreign intercourse, when

Mr. PINCKNEY rose. He understood the amendment was intended to confine
our Ministers Plenipotentiary to London and Paris, and that no higher
grade than Ministers Resident should be employed in any other country.
He was opposed to this change at this time, and to the mode proposed of
doing the business, if the time were seasonable. It was proper that at
this juncture our Ministers should remain as they were, as it was
prudent to derive all the influence and advantage we could from the
situation of our agents in Europe, who would not only be enabled to
communicate more correct information from thence, than could be derived
from any other source, but who could also explain the motives and
objects of this Government, and by that means remove any unfavorable
impressions which may be attempted to be given with respect to this
country; and thereby put our business in the best train for securing the
neutral standing which we have taken. He was against it for another
reason. To change the diplomatic intercourse in the way proposed, would
be forcing upon the Executive a measure contrary to its wishes. It would
also be affording testimony to the charge heretofore made, that there
was a division in the Government and the people--a situation in which
many wished to see us. He should be sorry to afford the appearance of
one department of Government having forced upon another a change of
measures of which they are the competent judges, and upon which they
have acted. As it was well known that there was a very intimate
connection between Spain and Holland, and the country with whom we have
at present a misunderstanding, he should be unwilling to deprive this
country of the advantages to be derived from having Ministers at those
places; besides, if our Ministers were to be recalled from thence, it
would be considered as an extraordinary proceeding; and might be
construed as intended to be hostile to them. Whatever influence Spain or
Holland may have in the councils of the country which he had alluded to,
by continuing our Ministers there, it was probable that weight would
operate in our favor. There was an additional reason with respect to
Spain. It was well known that we had points yet to settle with that
country. Our treaty with that power was not yet carried into effect, and
negotiations might at this time be going on in relation to it, which
might be frustrated by the recall of our Ministers.

Mr. NICHOLAS wished to explain his intentions in bringing forward this
amendment. He believed the gentleman last up would find they nearly
corresponded with his own. He had no idea of putting an immediate veto
upon the Ministers at present employed. He considered this bill, though
passed with a limitation, as a permanent system, and a subsequent clause
of the bill would enable the committee to fix the time at which the
salaries of Ministers should cease. His wish was to put a limit to this
extension of Executive power. He reminded the gentleman from South
Carolina that Holland was not concerned in this bill, as we had only a
Minister Resident there. If the subject were further dilated upon, he
should offer some further remarks upon it.

Mr. N. SMITH was surprised to hear the gentleman last up considered that
as a permanent provision which was limited to a duration of two years.
This law was merely temporary in its nature, and if he only contemplated
some future regulations in our foreign intercourse, his amendment was
not now necessary. However competent it was for the Legislature to
settle the salary of Ministers, it was clear the Legislature had no
power, by the constitution either to determine the number of foreign
Ministers to be employed, where they should be sent, or what should be
their grade. Under the general power of making treaties, vested in the
President, he had the power of sending Ministers where he pleased; also
in the power intrusted to him of executing the law (not only the
municipal, but the law of nations) it was necessary he should have this
power.

In a word, all relations were in the hands of the Executive; all our
foreign intercourse was to him, and from him. Of course, he was the only
judge of what was proper in this business. This being the case, it
should seem as if that House had nothing to do with respect to the
propriety of sending a Minister to Berlin, or in relation to other
grades of Ministers, though they had the power of fixing their salaries.
But it was contended by the gentleman from Georgia and others, that, by
regulating these salaries, the Legislature had the power of preventing
the extension of their establishment. This brought up an old question;
but it was a very important one, and he did not regret that it was
frequently drawn into discussion. He thought the great landmarks of our
constitution could not be too well understood. He did not mean, however,
to extend his observations on this subject. It was said, this was a
Government of departments and checks, and of course, that the
Legislature ought to check the Executive in its operations. That this
was a Government of departments and checks, to a certain extent, he
should readily allow; but that it was so to the extent which had been
represented, he did deny. Our Government was divided into three
departments, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; each of these had
checks and balances in its own department. The President was checked by
the Senate; the Legislature was checked by the President and Senate; the
Judiciary was checked by having certain appeals, writs of error, &c. So
far from one department checking the other, it was necessary that all
the parts should act in unison like a clock, and the moment one part
declined to act, the Government could not proceed. It was not in the
power of the Legislature to reverse the decision of the lowest court,
and should it then be said that they could judge over the head of the
Executive? This remark was applicable to all the departments. No one
department was a favorite of the constitution. Every act of a department
ought to be considered as well done. This being the case, whenever the
President had appointed a Minister, and done it constitutionally, when
he informed the Legislature thereof, they might do any thing and every
thing but doubt the propriety of establishing the Minister.

Mr. HARPER.--As to the general policy of the present motion, as
connected with the foreign relations of this country, Mr. H. said that
he would add two or three remarks on that subject, and then conclude.

The motion went, he said, to reduce the appointments and salaries of
three ministers: those to Madrid, Lisbon, and Berlin; and in support of
the motion, it was alleged that the last of these Ministers was entirely
unnecessary, and that the other two had been improperly, because
unnecessarily, raised from Ministers Resident to Ministers
Plenipotentiary. To him it was a sufficient answer to these allegations
to say, that the President had thought otherwise; because, the
President, being charged by the constitution with the foreign relations
of the country, must be invested with the means necessary for conducting
them with effect; and was infinitely better qualified by this situation
to judge what those means were, and how they ought to be used, than the
House can pretend to be. One of these means was the appointment of
foreign Ministers, which was expressly vested in the President by the
constitution. When the President, therefore, had thought fit to appoint
foreign Ministers, or to alter their grades, he had exercised a
constitutional power, and it did not lie with the House of
Representatives to object or judge. To him, therefore, Mr. H. said, it
was a sufficient answer to all those objections to say that the
President had thought otherwise. To others, who might hold different
opinions from him on this subject, he thought it was a sufficient answer
to be told that the House of Representatives, as well as the President,
had thought differently, and had sanctioned the changes which he had
thought proper to make in this respect, by voting money to carry them
into effect. This the House had done expressly in all the three cases
contemplated by the present motion.

Mr. GALLATIN said the committee had been told, in the course of the
debate, by some gentlemen, that this attempt to reduce the number of our
Ministers was unconstitutional; by others, that it was inexpedient; and
even some gentlemen, who agreed to the general expediency of the
measure, believed it would be attended with inconvenience from our
present foreign relations.

In relation to the constitutionality of the thing, he did not believe,
whatever doctrine was supported with respect to treaties, that upon this
occasion the committee should be told that they were interfering with
the constitutional power vested in the President. It was true that he
had the general power of appointing Ambassadors, but it was not less
true that the Legislature had the sole and exclusive power to provide
for all the expenses of the Union. Hence arose the idea of ours being a
Government of departments, so formed as to be a check upon each other.
But the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. N. SMITH) said there was no such
thing as a check of departments; that each was distinct; and, though
each had checks within itself, none of them checked the other. And to
illustrate his position, he introduced the simile of a clock, at the
same time that he told them that the Executive Department was the
main-spring which put the clock in motion, whilst Mr. G. supposed he
meant that the other branches were merely the hands, which moved as they
were directed. But if there was any act which could not be done but by
all the branches, each had its share in deciding upon the propriety of
it. When a treaty was made it had been argued that that House had
nothing to do but carry it into effect; but here it was said that the
House were bound to provide for every Ambassador appointed; and if, by
withholding salaries, they obliged the President to send Ministers
Resident where he wished to send Ministers Plenipotentiary, they would
act inconsistently with the constitution. Though gentlemen might make
speeches on this subject, they must know that where the Legislature had
a right to act, it had a right to deliberate and to use its discretion.

It was true treaties had been made, but no treaty had been made since
the adoption of the present Government, by Ministers Resident at any
Court at the time. If any benefits were derived to the country from the
British treaty, they must be attributed to the Envoy Extraordinary, and
not to our Minister at that court. And when our treaty with Spain was
concluded, it was necessary to send a Minister Resident to another Court
to do the business. Since our treaties were always made by special
Envoys, what advantage could it be to have numerous Ministers
Plenipotentiary in Europe? In the present critical situation of the
country, agitated as it was to the centre, was it not to be apprehended
that our Ministers would participate, in some degree, in the party
spirit which there abounded, and rank themselves on one side or the
other, which would have a tendency to draw this country into a vortex
from which we were so happily separated by the Atlantic? We were the
only nation, he said, who possessed a Government on a firm foundation,
in which civil and religious liberty was fully recognized; we,
therefore, enjoyed what the people of Europe were seeking after. We have
nothing to wish, except to remain in our present situation. Why, then,
should we hazard the being involved in European broils? He had before
stated that Consuls were equal to every commercial regulation, and he
had heard nothing to change his opinion. Seeing, therefore, that these
diplomatic agents were rather dangerous than useful, he thought it time
to put a stop to their increase.

Mr. BAYARD began his observations by remarking, that the gentleman from
Virginia had said that it was not his design that his motion should have
an immediate effect upon the Ministers at present employed. If the
gentleman was sincere in his avowal, it was clear that he did not
understand his own motion; for whatever amendment was introduced into
the third section, which the gentleman had intimated might be so amended
as to give the regulation a distant operation, as it only related to the
sum of money to be appropriated, it would not enable the President to
employ a Minister Plenipotentiary, besides those at London and Paris, at
a higher salary than $4,500.

Some gentlemen have said, it was idle talk about this House having the
power to appropriate, without having the power at the same time to use
their discretion. He contended that the power of appointing Ministers
was vested in the President, and the House had no right to believe he
would abuse this power. It had been supposed by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, that he might appoint an indefinite number of Ministers;
and were the House, in that case, he asked, blindly to appropriate for
them? This question was predicated upon an abuse of power, whilst the
constitution supposed it would be executed with fidelity. Suppose he
were to state the question in an opposite light. Let it be imagined that
this country has a misunderstanding with some foreign power, and that
the Executive should appoint a Minister, but the House, in the plenitude
of its powers, should refuse an appropriation. What might be the
consequence? Would not the House have contravened the constitution, by
taking from the President the power which by it is placed in him? It
certainly would. So that this supposition of the abuse of power would go
to the destruction of all authority. The Legislature was bound to
appropriate for the salary of the Chief Justice of the United States,
and though the President might appoint a _chimney-sweeper_ to that
office, they would still be bound. The constitution had trusted the
President, as well as it had trusted that House. Indeed it was not
conceivable that the House could act upon the subject of foreign
Ministers. Our interests with foreign countries came wholly under the
jurisdiction of the Executive. The duties of that House related to the
internal affairs of the country; but what related to foreign countries
and foreign agents was vested in the Executive Department. The President
was responsible for the manner in which this business was conducted. He
was bound to communicate, from time to time, our situation with foreign
powers; and if plans were carried on abroad for dividing or subjecting
us, if he were not to make due communication of the design, he would be
answerable for the neglect.


TUESDAY, January 30.

_Breach of Privilege._

Mr. SEWALL then said, he believed the business which he had to lay
before the House would require secrecy, as it was a subject which would
considerably affect the feelings of the members of the House. He
therefore moved that the galleries might be cleared; which was
accordingly done, excepting the members and Clerk.

Mr. SEWALL then said, that he had been informed, in a manner which left
no doubt of the truth of the fact, that, in the presence of the House
whilst sitting, MATTHEW LYON, a member from the State of Vermont, did
this day commit a violent attack and gross indecency upon the person of
ROGER GRISWOLD, another member of this House; and in order to bring the
subject before the House, that he had prepared a resolution, which he
read in his place, and delivered in at the Clerk's table. A question was
then taken in the following words: Does the matter so communicated
require secrecy?

This motion passed unanimously in the negative, and the galleries were
opened.

The House then proceeded to consider the motion made by the member from
Massachusetts, which was read, as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House, for
      a violent attack and gross indecency committed upon the
      person of Roger Griswold, another member, in the presence
      of the House, whilst sitting, be, for this disorderly
      behavior, expelled therefrom."

It was moved that this resolution be referred to a committee to be
denominated a Committee of Privileges, with instruction to inquire into
the whole matter of the said resolution, and to report the same with
their opinion thereon to the House.

The question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the affirmative,
49 to 44.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. PINCKNEY, VENABLE, KITTERA, ISAAC PARKER, R.
WILLIAMS, COCHRAN, and DENT, be a committee for the purpose.

A motion was then made that the House come to the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That the House will consider it a high breach
      of privilege if either of the members shall enter into any
      personal contest until a decision of the House shall be had
      thereon."

A motion was made to add the following words to the end thereof:

      "And that the said Matthew Lyon be considered in the
      custody of the Sergeant-at-arms until the further order of
      the House."

The yeas and nays were taken upon this question and decided in the
negative--29 to 62.


THURSDAY, February 1.

_Breach of Privilege._

The SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a letter from a
member from Vermont, which he was requested to lay before them.

Mr. RUTLEDGE thought, that in all cases, when letters were sent to the
SPEAKER to be laid before the House, it would be proper for him to state
the substance of such communications before they are read, otherwise
improper matters might be brought before them.

The SPEAKER allowed that the suggestion was a proper one, and proceeded
to state the contents of the letter in his hand; which having done, the
reading of it was called for, and it was read as follow:

      _To the Speaker of the House of Representatives_:

      SIR:--As the attention of the House of Representatives has
      been called to my conduct in a dispute with Mr. GRISWOLD on
      a suggestion of its being a violation of the order of the
      House, and the respect due to it from all its members, I
      feel it incumbent on me to obviate the imputation of
      intentional disrespect. Permit me, sir, through you, to
      assure the House of Representatives that I feel as much as
      any of its members the necessity of preserving the utmost
      decorum in its proceedings; that I am incapable of an
      intentional violation of its rule; and that, if, in the
      present instance, I am chargeable with a disregard of them,
      it is owing wholly to my ignorance of their extent, and
      that the House of Representatives claimed any
      superintendence over its members when not formally
      constituted, and when they are not engaged in actual
      business. If I have been mistaken in my understanding on
      this subject, I beg the House to believe that my fault has
      been without intention, and that I am very sorry that I
      have deserved its censure. I am, sir, your obedient
      servant,

                          MATTHEW LYON.

      _February 1, 1798._

The reading of the letter having been gone through, a member proposed
that it should lie on the table, when

Mr. MACON said, that as it was an acknowledgment of improper conduct, he
thought it ought to be entered upon the journals.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved that the letter be referred to the committee who have
this subject under consideration. Gentlemen would recollect, he said,
that, on a former occasion, when an offence of the same nature was
committed, a letter written by the offending member was not only
referred, but was also deemed a sufficient apology to the House. He did
not know that this would be the case in the present instance; but that
it might be, was evinced by the case to which he alluded. He hoped,
therefore, it would be referred. Agreed to.


FRIDAY, February 2.

_Breach of Privilege._

Mr. VENABLE from the Committee of Privileges, made the following report:

      The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a
      resolution on the 30th of January, charging Matthew Lyon
      with disorderly behavior, with instructions to inquire into
      the whole matter thereof, and to report the same, with
      their opinion thereon, to the House, having examined
      several witnesses on oath touching the subject, report:
      That, during the sitting of the House of Representatives on
      the 30th day of January, 1798, the tellers of the House
      being engaged in counting the ballots for Managers of the
      impeachment against William Blount, the Speaker had left
      his chair, and many members their seats, as is usual on
      such occasions; the Speaker was sitting in one of the
      member's seats, next to the bar of the House, and several
      members near him, of whom Mr. Griswold was one.

      Mr. Lyon was standing without the bar of the House, leaning
      on the same, and holding a conversation with the Speaker.
      He spoke loud enough to be heard by all those who were near
      him, as if he intended to be heard by them. The subject of
      his conversation was, the conduct of the Representatives of
      the State of Connecticut, (of whom Mr. Griswold was one.)
      Mr. Lyon declared that they acted in opposition to the
      interests and opinion of nine-tenths of their constituents;
      that they were pursuing their own private views, without
      regarding the interests of the people; that they were
      seeking offices, which they were willing to accept, whether
      yielding $9,000 or $1,000. He further observed that the
      people of that State were blinded or deceived by those
      Representatives; that they were permitted to see but one
      side of the question in politics, being lulled asleep by
      the opiates which the members from that State administered
      to them; with other expressions equally tending to derogate
      from the political integrity of the Representatives of
      Connecticut.

      On Mr. Lyon's observing, that if he should go into
      Connecticut, and manage a press there six months, although
      the people of that State were not fond of revolutionary
      principles, he could effect a revolution, and turn out the
      present Representatives--Mr. Griswold replied to these
      remarks, and, amongst other things, said that, "If you go
      into Connecticut, you had better wear your wooden sword,"
      or words to that effect, alluding to Mr. Lyon's having been
      cashiered in the army.

      Mr. Lyon did not notice the allusion at this time, but
      continued the conversation on the same subject. Mr.
      Griswold then left his seat, and stood next to Mr. Lyon,
      leaning on the bar, being outside the same.

      On Mr. Lyon's saying he knew the people of Connecticut
      well, having lived among them many years--that he had
      frequent occasion to fight them in his own district, and
      that he never failed to convince them--Mr. Griswold asked,
      if he fought them with his wooden sword, on which Mr. Lyon
      spat in his face.

      The Committee having attentively considered the foregoing
      state of facts, and having heard Mr. Lyon in his defence,
      are of opinion that his conduct in this transaction was
      highly indecorous, and unworthy of a member of this House.

      They, therefore, recommend the adoption of the resolution
      submitted to their consideration by the House, in the words
      following, to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House, for
      a violent attack and gross indecency, committed upon the
      person of Roger Griswold, another member, in the presence
      of the House while sitting, be for this disorderly behavior
      expelled therefrom."

The report having been read,

Mr. LYON said, he did not think the evidence was stated in its full
extent in this report. He wished, therefore, before the House proceeded
in the business, they would hear the evidence themselves.

Mr. HARPER inquired of the SPEAKER whether that was the usual mode of
proceeding?

The SPEAKER said, it was necessary first to take up the report for a
second reading.

Mr. MACON observed that this was a very delicate and a very serious
question, as it related to one of the members of that House, and as it
respected the dignity of the House itself. He hoped, therefore, the
report would be printed, that some time would be given to consider it,
and that the House would themselves hear the testimony. The punishment
which the report proposed was equal to death itself. He hoped,
therefore, it would not be acted upon hastily, but made the order of the
day for Monday.

Mr. HARPER did not wish to press the business in an improper manner, as
it was certainly of great importance to a member of that House, to the
House itself, and to the dignity of the country. It was usual to have
all reports of any consequence printed, and a day or two given for
consideration. He was not himself desirous of delay, as he was at
present ready to vote upon the question; but, if other members wished
it, he should not object to the motion proposed by the gentleman from
North Carolina.

Mr. NICHOLAS took it for granted, that, whenever this subject came up,
the House would think it necessary to go into an examination of the
witnesses themselves, and not rely upon the manner in which their
testimony had struck others. He thought it would be best, therefore,
whilst the report was printing, to go on in the examination of
witnesses.

The question for postponing till Monday was put and carried.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he had no objection to wait for the printing of the
report, before the House proceeded to examine the witnesses, but he
should not waive the right of having them re-examined before the House.


MONDAY, February 5.

Mr. D. FOSTER reported a bill for the relief of Oliver Pollock, which
was committed for Wednesday.

_French Outrages._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      I have received a letter from his Excellency Charles
      Pinckney, Esq., Governor of the State of South Carolina,
      dated the 22d October, 1797, enclosing a number of
      depositions and witnesses to several captures and outrages
      committed within and near the limits of the United States,
      by a French privateer belonging to Cape Francois, or Monte
      Christo, called the Vertitude or Fortitude, and commanded
      by a person of the name of Jordon or Jourdain, and
      particularly upon an English merchant ship named the
      Oracabissa, which he first plundered and then burned, with
      the rest of her cargo, of great value, within the territory
      of the United States, in the harbor of Charleston, on the
      17th of October last. Copies of which letter and
      depositions, and also of several other depositions relative
      to the same subject, received from the Collector of
      Charleston, are herewith communicated.

      Whenever the channel of diplomatical communication between
      the United States and France shall be opened, I shall
      demand satisfaction for the insult and reparation for the
      injury.

      I have transmitted these papers to Congress, not so much
      for the purpose of communicating an account of so daring a
      violation of the territory of the United States, as to show
      the propriety and necessity of enabling the Executive
      authority of Government to take measures for protecting the
      citizens of the United States and such foreigners as have a
      right to enjoy their peace, and the protection of their
      laws, within their limits, in that as well as some other
      harbors which are equally exposed.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _February 5, 1798_.

This Message, with the documents accompanying it, was referred to the
committee for considering on proper measures for the protection and
defence of the country.


_Breach of Privilege._

Mr. SEWALL moved the House to take up the report of the Committee of
Privileges, in order that it might be committed to a Committee of the
Whole.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS wished to know whether evidence could be heard in a
Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER said, the House might authorize the Committee of the Whole
to hear evidence.

Mr. SEWALL moved the report to be committed. If gentlemen wished
evidence to be heard before the committee, they would, of course, make
an addition to his motion. For his own part he thought it unnecessary.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to evidence being heard before a Committee
of the Whole, except that it might involve the subject in some
embarrassment; as it was possible that a majority of the committee might
come to a decision which, according to the constitution, it would
require two-thirds of the House to confirm. He saw no reason for going
into a committee, except that the SPEAKER would have to give his
testimony; but he did not see why the SPEAKER might not give his
testimony from his seat, as well as from any other place. By going into
a committee, the subject would take up a longer time than it otherwise
would do, as they should have twice to go over the same ground.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS was in favor of hearing the evidence before the
committee.

Mr. THATCHER was not of opinion, with the gentleman from Virginia, that
this matter should be run over as soon as possible. He thought it of
infinite importance, as it respected the dignity of the House and the
people at large, and he hoped it would go through every form of the
House.

The question for a commitment was put and carried, and it was made the
order for this day.

Mr. NICHOLAS then moved that the Committee of the Whole be authorized to
examine testimony, and called for the yeas and nays upon the question;
which being agreed upon, they were taken, and, so little opposition was
there to this mode of proceeding that the question was carried, 88 to 4.
The negatives were Messrs. GORDON, SEWALL, SITGREAVES, and THATCHER.

Mr. D. FOSTER moved that the committee should be authorized to report
the whole of the evidence, as he thought it was important it should be
entered upon the journals. Carried.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. DENT
in the chair, on this subject.

Mr. THATCHER said it would be necessary that a Judge should attend to
administer an oath to the members who should be called upon to give
their testimony.

The CHAIRMAN informed the committee that the Judge of the District Court
was in the House.

Judge PETERS was accordingly called upon.

Mr. RUTLEDGE desired an oath might be administered to the SPEAKER,
Messrs. S. SMITH, BROOKS, HOSMER, COIT, DANA, GOODRICH, and CHAMPLIN;
which was accordingly done.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, if there should be occasion, he should also call upon
Judge CHIPMAN, a Senator from Vermont, as an evidence.

Mr. CHIPMAN was, towards the close of the sitting, also sworn.

Some conversation took place as to the best mode of taking the evidence,
whether, as it was to be reported to the House, it should be received
from the witnesses in writing, leaving them to be questioned afterwards
by the members of the committee, or whether it should be given _viva
voce_, deliberately, and taken down by the Clerk. The latter mode was at
length adopted, and the SPEAKER proceeded to give his testimony.

      [Taking the testimony in this case, and the debates upon
      it, occupied the House until the 12th of February, when, a
      motion having been made to amend the resolution of
      expulsion, by substituting a reprimand, a vote was taken on
      that question, and negatived--52 to 44. The vote was then
      taken on the resolution of expulsion, and stood yeas 52,
      nays 44. The constitution requiring two-thirds of the
      members present to carry a vote of expulsion, the
      Resolution was declared by the Speaker to be not carried.
      The following were the yeas and nays:]

      YEAS.--George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas. A. Bayard,
      David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin,
      John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik,
      Samuel W. Dana, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, George Dent,
      Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan
      Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon,
      William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley,
      William Hindman, David Holmes, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H.
      Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir,
      William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison
      G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, John Read, John
      Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, Wm. Shepard,
      Thos. Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg
      Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson,
      Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

      NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
      Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell,
      Thomas Claiborne, Wm. Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay,
      John Clopton, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Wm. Findlay,
      John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert Gallatin,
      William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A.
      Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter
      Jones, Edw. Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon,
      Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony
      New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith,
      William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford,
      Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van
      Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert
      Williams.


WEDNESDAY, February 14.

_Quakers' Memorial._

Mr. SITGREAVES moved the order of the day on the report of a select
committee on the memorial of the people called Quakers; which motion
being agreed to, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the
subject, Mr. DENT in the chair. The report having been read as follows:

      "That, inasmuch as the said memorial and address presents,
      in general terms only, certain subjects to the
      consideration of the Legislature, without containing any
      definite state of facts, or any specific application for
      its interposition, the memorialists were desired to exhibit
      a particular view of the grievances of which they
      complained, in order that the attention of the House might
      be directed to precise objects, and that it might be better
      discerned whether the complaints of the memorialists were
      of a nature to justify Legislative interference:

      "That, in consequence of this request, the memorialists
      laid before the committee the representation and documents
      which accompany this report:

      "That, on the subject of this representation, the
      memorialists were invited to confer with the committee, and
      were solicited to suggest the remedy which they conceived
      it to be in the power of Congress to apply to the case, as
      stated by them:

      "That the committee, after several conferences with the
      memorialists, and an attentive consideration of the
      subject, are very clearly of opinion that the facts
      disclosed in the said representation are exclusively of
      judicial cognizance; and that it is not competent to the
      Legislative authority of Congress to do any act in relation
      to the matter thereof:

      "Wherefore the committee recommend the following
      resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That the memorialists have leave to withdraw
      the said memorial and address."

Mr. THATCHER could not say that he was perfectly satisfied with the
report of the committee in all its parts. He wished the business
disposed of without coming to any decisive resolution upon it, so as
either to approve or disapprove of it. He was not ready to say that the
facts disclosed in that memorial were exclusively of judicial
cognizance, and that the Legislature of the Union was incompetent to do
any thing in it. It might, however, be true, but it was not clear to
him. He would rather that the subject should not now be acted upon: he
would, therefore, propose an amendment to the report, which might
conclude the business without coming to any resolution upon it, which
had been the course heretofore taken with similar applications. He
moved, therefore, to strike out the resolution giving the petitioners
leave to withdraw their petition; and if his motion was agreed to, he
should wish the committee to rise, and that the House would not act
further upon it at present.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, he, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts, was
dissatisfied with the report of the select committee. He thought the
report ought to have stated that the peace of certain States in the
Union had been much disturbed by applications of this kind. He had
prepared a resolution to this effect, which he would read in his place.
It was as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That part of the memorial of the people called
      Quakers has a tendency to disturb the tranquillity of some
      of the States of the Union; that this House is not
      competent to act upon it, and therefore they have leave to
      withdraw their memorial."

There could be little difference of opinion on the assertion that the
internal tranquillity of several States had been disturbed by these
applications; and he believed there would be no difficulty in obtaining
a majority of the House to declare it; as, if the Representatives of
three or four States were to rise and declare the fact, it must have
sufficient weight to carry a declaration of this kind. He had, however,
mentioned the matter to some of his friends, and found it was not very
agreeable to them, as they wished to get rid of the business without
debate. But if the present motion were to obtain, he should afterwards
bring forward this resolution.

The CHAIRMAN declared the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts out
of order.

The question on the resolution, as reported, was put and carried, there
being 74 votes in the affirmative. The committee then rose, and the
House concurred in the report.


THURSDAY, February 15.

_Fracas in the House._

[About a quarter past eleven o'clock, after prayers, whilst the SPEAKER
was in his chair, and many members in their places, but before the House
had been called to order, and before the journal had been read, Mr.
GRISWOLD entered the House, and observing Mr. LYON in his place (who was
writing) he went up to him with a pretty strong walking stick in his
hand, with which he immediately began to beat him with great violence.
Mr. G.'s approach was observed by Mr. LYON, but before he could get from
behind his desk he had received some severe blows. As soon as he got on
the floor of the House he endeavored to lay hold of Mr. G. (having no
stick or weapon in his hand) but he was prevented from doing so by Mr.
G.'s falling back, and the continual blows with which he was assailed.
At length getting behind the SPEAKER'S chair, Mr. L. snatched up the
tongs from the fire; the combatants then closed and came down together
upon the floor, Mr. G. being uppermost. The members in the House, who
till now seemed to look on with amazement at the scene, without an
attempt to put an end to it, got round the parties, and separated them,
but not before Mr. L. had aimed a blow at Mr. G.'s head with the tongs,
but which he parried off. The SPEAKER was now called upon to desire the
members to take their seats and form the House. Whilst this was doing,
the two enraged members met again without the bar, and, but for the
doorkeeper and some gentlemen present, would have renewed the combat.
Order having been obtained (at least as much as it was possible to
obtain from the agitated state of the House) the Clerk proceeded to read
the journal, and the business of the day was entered upon. It continued
till one o'clock, when from the perturbation which was naturally
occasioned by such a scene, and it being evident that business was very
little attended to by a great part of the House, a motion for an
adjournment was made and carried. It will be seen that no notice was
taken of this proceeding in the course of the sitting.]


FRIDAY, February 16.

_Case of Griswold and Lyon._

Immediately upon the journals having been read,

Mr. DAVIS, of Kentucky, rose and proposed the following resolution for
the adoption of the House:

      "_Resolved_, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members
      of this House, for violent and disorderly behavior
      committed in the House, be expelled therefrom."

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the resolution would be permitted to lie on the
table.

Mr. DAVIS saw no reason for delaying a decision upon this resolution. He
thought the conduct of these gentlemen had been so grossly violent, and
so notorious to most of the members of the House, that there need be no
hesitation in deciding upon it. If gentlemen wished, however, to take
the same course which had been adopted on a former occasion, he should
not object to it, though he thought it unnecessary. It was needless, now
to say any thing as to the necessity of preserving the dignity and honor
of that House; enough had already been said, and he thought pertinently
said, on a former occasion on this subject. And as he believed neither
the dignity, the honor, or peace of that House could be preserved whilst
these members remained in it, he hoped the House would be unanimous in
voting their expulsion.

Mr. THATCHER did not see why the innocent should be punished with the
guilty. The gentleman who brought forward this proposition, he supposed,
did not wish this. From what he saw of the affray, he did not think Mr.
LYON deserved to be punished for the part he acted. He certainly
received a severe beating, but he appeared to be passive from the
beginning to the end; and he did not think Mr. LYON ought to be expelled
because he was beaten. As to any investigation of what happened
yesterday, he did not think it necessary, as most of the members of that
House were eye-witnesses to the fact. But the gentleman said there would
be no peace until these members were expelled. He did not know from what
he drew his conclusions. What was done yesterday was done before the
House was in session; and it had already been determined that acts of
violence committed without the bar, during a session of the House, are
not causes of expulsion. He did not know, therefore, how gentlemen
would support the doctrine that a member ought to be expelled for an act
of violence done before the House was in session. It might be necessary,
however, to investigate other facts connected with these.

Mr. J. PARKER seconded the motion for the expulsion of these members,
because he believed there would be no peace in the House until they were
expelled. He was sorry the gentleman from Massachusetts should have said
he saw nothing but what was passive on the part of Mr. LYON. He himself
saw more, and that gentleman must have seen it if he had his eyes about
him. He said, that after the offending members had been separated Mr.
LYON met Mr. GRISWOLD without the bar of the House and began to belabor
him with his cane, when they were again separated. The attack of
yesterday, Mr. P. said, at a time when the House ought to have been in
session though it had not come to order, would fix an indelible stain
upon it; and if these members were not expelled, no member could
consider himself as safe in his seat. Such a transaction would certainly
lower that House in the estimation of their constituents. He had even
heard this morning, as he came to the Hall, persons in the street call
out, "There is nothing to do in Congress to-day--there's no fighting
going on!" In order to get rid of these reproaches, he hoped all parties
would unite in expelling these members. If their constituents chose to
send them back, he hoped no member would associate with or take notice
of them. And if a vote of expulsion should be agreed upon, he would
afterwards move to expunge from the journals all the entries relative to
these disgraceful proceedings.

Mr. NICHOLAS wished the motion to lie upon the table for the present,
because he was not himself prepared to decide upon the subject; he
wished, also, that whenever the motion was taken up, gentlemen might
come with their minds determined upon it, so that a long debate might
not be necessary. He therefore moved to postpone the consideration of
this resolution to Monday.

Mr. GORDON wished to know what part of the resolution the gentleman from
Virginia was not ready to act upon?

Mr. NICHOLAS did not understand the drift of the gentleman's question.
If he meant to ask whether he (Mr. N.) disapproved of the vote which he
had already given, he would answer him _he did not_.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said he should approve of the motion for postponement,
if it were made for to-morrow, instead of Monday; and he hoped the
business would not only be taken up to-morrow, but be concluded before
they rose. He had sat with great patience during the late debate, but he
should be opposed to going into any further lengthy proceedings on so
disagreeable a subject, which would prevent them from doing the business
of the nation, for which they were sent.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to make the question the order for
to-morrow, if the House met.

Mr. THATCHER observed, that he had before said that he had seen nothing
on the part of Mr. LYON, in the affray of yesterday, which ought to
subject him to expulsion; but the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. PARKER)
said, that if he (Mr. T.) had had his eyes about him, he might have seen
something for which he ought to be expelled. If, indeed, he had _eyes
behind_ he might have seen what he alluded to; but this not being the
case, he did not see it. As far as the business respects Mr. LYON, some
inquiry might be necessary, as all he saw was, that Mr. LYON suffered
much, without any offence on his part. He thought, therefore, the
business should be gone into, as on a former occasion, and that they
ought to examine the subject with candor, and then they should doubtless
decide upon it with propriety.

Mr. SITGREAVES was against the postponement, in order that a different
course might be taken. He knew nothing in this case which distinguished
it from a late case, and therefore could not see why the same course
ought not to be pursued as was then pursued. He should therefore vote
against a postponement, in order that the resolution might be referred
to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. HARPER inquired whether such a motion would not supersede a motion
for postponement.

The SPEAKER said, it would.

Mr. HARPER then made the motion.

Mr. GALLATIN asked whether he understood the SPEAKER rightly, that a
motion for a reference to a committee superseded a motion for
postponement?

The SPEAKER said, it did.

Mr. NICHOLAS asked whether it would not then be in order to postpone the
consideration of the subject?

The SPEAKER answered, it would.

Mr. NICHOLAS renewed the motion for a postponement till to-morrow.

Mr. HARPER, believing that it would be proper to refer this resolution
to a committee, as before, especially as some of the facts did not pass
within the view of the House, he should vote against the
postponement--not because he wished to avoid a vote on the question;
for, if it should be the opinion of the House that it ought not to go to
a committee, he was perfectly ready to give a vote upon the question;
but he thought it better that the business should have this course. With
respect to any discussion being necessary upon this subject, he perhaps
might think it necessary to make some observations upon it, when the
question came before the House for decision; for, though some gentlemen
might be endued with the happy faculty of doing every thing in an
instant, he could not boast of possessing that faculty. But, even if he
were not desirous of discussion for his own information, he wished it
for the information of the public; and, notwithstanding all that the
House had heard about a waste of public money and public time, he
believed they should best serve the public by suffering the business to
take the usual course.

The motion for a postponement was put and negatived.

Mr. SITGREAVES then moved that the resolution be referred to the
Committee of Privileges.

Mr. HARPER moved that the committee have leave to sit during the session
of the House.

Mr. THATCHER thought, as it was probable a number of members might be
wanted to give evidence, the House had better adjourn, as on a former
occasion, as it would not be proper to go on with business when so many
members were absent.

Mr. T. CLAIBORNE hoped leave would not be granted for the committee to
sit immediately. He wished them coolly to deliberate upon the business,
which they could scarcely be expected to do, when their passions were so
strongly affected as they must be at present.

The question for leave to sit during the session was put and carried--46
to 36.

Mr. HARPER moved that the committee be instructed to report to the House
the evidence in writing, upon which they shall found their report.

Mr. KITTERA thought the facts were so notorious that there was no
necessity for this instruction.

Mr. HARPER said if his friend from Pennsylvania could say that every
body would be satisfied with the report of the committee without the
evidence, he would not insist upon this motion. But if the evidence was
not reported, how could he say that all the witnesses might not again be
called before the House? It was his wish to prevent this.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said there was a considerable difference between this
transaction and the one lately under consideration. He thought in this
case it would probably save much trouble to report the evidence.

Mr. BROOKS said it must be recollected that the gentleman from Virginia
was not satisfied with the former report. He wished to hear the
witnesses themselves; and if the evidence was to be reported, he did not
suppose it would be satisfactory.

Mr. NICHOLAS seconded the motion, because it would be likely to shorten
the business; but if, when the testimony came to be reported, there was
any obscurity in it, he should feel it necessary to ask the witnesses
questions by way of elucidation, as every man who was called upon as a
judge, should be in full possession of every fact relative to the
subject.

Mr. BROOKS said the gentleman who had just sat down, would have no
difficulty in pointing out some obscurity, in order to furnish an
apology for rehearing of the witnesses.

Mr. KITTERA said if to report the evidence would prevent the necessity
of hearing the witnesses in the House, he should not object to it; but
he believed this would not be the case.

Mr. VENABLE was before of opinion that it would have been best for
witnesses to have delivered their evidence in writing. He hoped that
course would now be taken, and then there would be no difficulty in
reporting it to the House; and if it should be found necessary, in order
to elucidate any part of it, to put any questions to the witnesses in
the House, the business would be greatly facilitated and shortened by
the evidence being reported.

The question was put and carried.

Mr. OTIS believed that something further was necessary to be done in
respect to the unfortunate business, which had already engaged the
attention of the House. From what had happened in the view of the House,
it appears that the parties are in the habit of conflicting with each
other; and except they are restrained by some authority which shall be
sufficiently imposing upon them, further violence may be expected. In
order, therefore, to secure this House from future violations of its
dignity and order, he proposed the following resolution for adoption:

      "_Resolved_, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members
      of this House, be respectively required by the SPEAKER to
      pledge their words to this House, that they will not commit
      any act of violence upon each other during this session;
      and that if either refuse to make such engagements, the
      party refusing shall be committed to the custody of the
      Sergeant-at-arms, until he shall comply with this
      obligation."

Mr. SEWALL understood a motion had been agreed to in relation to the
affair of yesterday, which might produce an expulsion of the members in
question. He thought it would be better, therefore, to alter the wording
of the resolution, and instead of "during this session," say "during the
continuance of the examination of the business before the House."

Mr. SITGREAVES did not think any alterations were necessary. An
expulsion of the members was a possible, but not a necessary result. If
an expulsion does not take place, the resolution will remain in
operation for the remainder of the session, which would be proper; and,
if an expulsion took place, its operation would fall of course.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS thought it best to pass the resolution as it stood. If a
similar resolution had been entered into on a former occasion, it would
probably have prevented what had now taken place.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS called for the reading of the resolution which was
passed on a former occasion. [It was read. It stated "that any personal
contest between the members, before the House had come to a decision
upon the business, would be considered as a high breach of privileges."]
Mr. W. thought this resolution went as far as the House had a right to
go. The resolution proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, went
farther, he thought, than they had power to go. It went to imprison one
or both of the parties, if he or they refused to comply with the request
of the House. He had his doubts whether that House had the
constitutional power to imprison a man for a crime, as the law only
would do this. He thought a resolution, similar to that adopted on a
former occasion, would be sufficient at present; and if the mover did
not think proper so to alter it, he would himself move an amendment for
this purpose.

Mr. OTIS flattered himself that his object would have met with the
concurrence of all sides of the House, believing that all wished to
prevent future violations of order and peace. With respect to the doubts
of the gentleman from North Carolina, his politics seemed to be
altogether a system of _doubts_. If this system was common, it would be
extremely difficult to progress with business at all. He believed, on
the present occasion, these doubts were groundless. When an act of
violence was done in the view of the members of the House, they had
certainly the power to obtain some security against a repetition of such
violence. If this was not done, the presumption was, the business of the
session might be continually interrupted; and had they not the right of
securing the peaceful exercise of their legislative functions for the
remainder of the session? He thought this could not be seriously
doubted. With respect to the former resolution, if he had been in his
place, he should have suggested its impropriety; for, by it, it seemed
to be implied that, after the question was decided, though they could
not do it before, the members in question would be at liberty to commit
any act of violence they pleased upon each other. They had seen the
consequence. He hoped, therefore, the House would restrain these
gentlemen in such a manner as that it may not be in their power again to
interrupt their proceedings.

The question was then taken on the resolution, and carried by a large
majority, there being 73 votes in favor of it.

The SPEAKER asked, whether it was the pleasure of the House that the
Sergeant-at-arms should be sent for Mr. LYON?

Mr. SITGREAVES said it might not be convenient for Mr. LYON to attend
the House; he asked whether the resolution might not be sent to him, and
his answer be received in writing?

Mr. NICHOLAS supposed, that if both gentlemen prepared a declaration in
writing, and presented it to-morrow, it would answer the purpose.

Mr. HARPER replied, the mischief intended to be guarded against might in
the mean time be done.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he had just been called out by a member of the House,
who had asked him whether he thought it would be proper for Mr. LYON to
attend the House. He supposed, therefore, if the Sergeant-at-arms was
sent for him, he would immediately attend.

Mr. HARPER hoped the Sergeant-at-arms would be sent.

The SPEAKER said, as soon as the Clerk had made a copy of the
resolution, the Sergeant-at-arms would wait upon Mr. LYON with it.

Mr. LYON having entered,

The SPEAKER said, the members from Vermont and Connecticut being now in
their places, he should proceed to read the resolution which had been
entered into by the House. [He then read the resolution.]

As soon as it was finished reading,

Mr. GRISWOLD rose and said, he should not hesitate to enter into the
proposed engagement.

Mr. LYON also rose and said, he was ready, as it was the wish of the
House, to agree to the proposition.

The SPEAKER said, then you do accordingly agree to this proposition?

Both answered, "I do agree."


MONDAY, February 19.

_Amy Dardin._

Upon motion of Mr. T. CLAIBORNE, the following resolution was agreed
to--45 to 40:

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a
      bill for the relief of Amy Dardin."

[This claim has been long before Congress, and been several times the
subject of discussion. It is for the value of the famous horse Romulus,
the property of the husband of the petitioner, pressed into the service
of the United States during the war. The case of the widow is evidently
a hard one, and this is the second time a vote has been obtained in her
favor, which has afterwards been reversed.]

The committee rose, reported their agreement to the three resolutions,
and had leave to sit again. The House took up the two first, agreed to
them, and directed the Committee of Claims to bring in a bill or bills
accordingly. When the third resolution came to be considered, the yeas
and nays were called for, and its adoption was strongly opposed by
Messrs. HARPER, NICHOLAS, and BAYARD, on the ground of its throwing open
a door to every claim which had heretofore been determined as barred, as
cutting up by the root all the acts of limitation; that it was also
setting aside these laws in the most objectionable way, by inviting
every person, who had an unsatisfied claim, to petition Congress for
relief, which would of course engage much of their time. If the acts
were to be set aside, it would be much better and less expensive
therefore to authorize the proper department to settle these claims,
than that the time of the House should be engaged in investigating and
settling them.

On the other hand, its adoption was advocated by Messrs. GALLATIN and T.
CLAIBORNE. This was stated as a hard case; that this determination would
not open the acts of limitation to any but such as Congress might deem
extremely hard cases; that it would give the Treasury no power whatever
to settle any claim: the power, therefore, could not be abused, except
they themselves abused it; that whatever policy there might be in acts
of limitation, they were certainly liable to strong objections; they
knew they were honorably indebted a sum of money, but they determine not
to pay it, merely because the paying it might render the accounts at
the Treasury less simple, or because they would be liable to pay more
than is convenient. This policy might be justifiable, but it bore very
hard upon individual sufferers. It was argued, therefore, that without
opening the acts generally, when a strong, unequivocal claim was
presented, which was in the hands of the original holder, and where, of
course, there could be no possibility of fraud, relief might and ought
to be granted.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS was an enemy to acts of limitation, as he thought a debt
once due must always be due until paid; but he would either have them
opened generally, or not at all.

The yeas and nays upon agreeing to this proposition for setting aside
the act of limitation in this case were taken, and decided, yeas 35,
nays 55, as follows:

      YEAS.--David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas
      Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay,
      John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent,
      Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James
      Gillespie, William Barry Grove, Carter B. Harrison, David
      Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke,
      Matthew Lyon, James Machir, Blair McClenachan, Joseph
      McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Rutledge, jr.,
      William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sumter, Abraham
      Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and
      Robert Williams.

      NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James
      A. Bayard, Thomas Blount, David Brooks, Nathan Bryan,
      Stephen Bullock, Dempsey Burges, Christopher G. Champlin,
      John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik,
      Samuel W. Dana, Thomas Evans, William Findlay, Abiel
      Foster, Dwight Foster, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich,
      William Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, John A.
      Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, Jonathan N.
      Havens, Wm. Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay,
      John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, Wm.
      Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, John Nicholas,
      Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, James Schureman,
      Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Samuel Sitgreaves,
      Nathaniel Smith, Samuel Smith, Peleg Sprague, Richard
      Stanford, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, Thomas
      Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John
      Williams.

Mr. HARPER then proposed the following resolution, which was agreed to:

      _Resolved_, That the prayer of the petition of Amy Dardin
      ought not to be granted.


TUESDAY, February 20.

_Case of Griswold and Lyon._

Mr. VENABLE, from the Committee of Privileges, laid the following report
upon the table, together with the evidence relative thereto:

      The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a
      resolution in the following words: "_Resolved_, That Roger
      Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this House, for
      violent and disorderly behavior committed in the House, be
      expelled therefrom," with instructions to report the
      evidence in writing, have, according to the orders of the
      House, proceeded to take the evidence, which they herewith
      report; and they report further, that it is their opinion
      that the said resolution ought to be disagreed to.


THURSDAY, February 22.

The usual time of calling the House to order being arrived, the Clerk
desired members to take their seats; which being done,

Mr. KITTERA said, the SPEAKER had desired him to inform the House that
he was so much indisposed as to be unable to attend the House to-day.
Mr. K. suggested the propriety, therefore, of adjourning the orders of
to-day till to-morrow.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS did not see a necessity for this. He thought the House
might informally go into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the
Committee of Privileges. He had seen this course taken in other
Legislative bodies, and as it would be the means of saving a day, he
hoped this mode would now be adopted.

Mr. THATCHER hoped gentlemen would not consent to go on with business in
an informal manner, since it was evident they were sufficiently informal
with all their forms.

Mr. HARRISON inquired if there was any probability that the SPEAKER
would be able to attend the House to-morrow. If not, he should be for
choosing a temporary Speaker.

Mr. KITTERA said, the indisposition of the SPEAKER was occasioned by a
severe headache, to which he was subject; that it generally continued
for six or eight hours, and afterwards he was perfectly well.

The question for postponement of the orders of the day till to-morrow
was then put by the Clerk, and carried; and then the House adjourned
till to-morrow.


FRIDAY, February 23.

The bill providing for the widows and orphans of certain deceased
officers, was read the third time, and passed.

_Revenue Statements._

A communication was laid before the House by the SPEAKER, from the
Secretary of the Treasury, enclosing sundry documents prepared by the
late Commissioner of the Revenue, in consequence of a resolution of the
House of the 6th of January, 1798, requiring to be laid before the House
every session, within ten days after its meeting, a statement of the net
produce of the internal revenues, the salaries of the Collectors, &c.,
for the year preceding. The Secretary apologizes for not having made the
communication sooner. It was ordered to be printed.

_Case of Griswold and Lyon._

The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of
Privileges, of the twentieth instant; and the same being again read in
the words following, to wit:

      The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a
      resolution in the following words, to wit: "_Resolved_,
      That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this
      House, for riotous and disorderly behavior, committed in
      the House, be expelled therefrom," with instructions to
      report the evidence in writing, have, according to the
      order of the House, proceeded to take the evidence, which
      they herewith report; and they report further, that it is
      their opinion that the said resolution be disagreed to.

Mr. DAVIS said he hoped the House would disagree to the report of their
Committee of Privileges; after this was done, the resolution could be
altered in such a manner as gentlemen might think proper.

Mr. DENT called for the yeas and nays. Agreed to be taken.

Mr. SITGREAVES said there were many considerations which should incline
the House to come to a decision upon the present business without
entering into any unnecessary discussion; and there were others which
should lead them to avoid coming to an immediate decision. He should,
therefore, move that the further consideration of this subject be
postponed until the 4th of March, 1799.

Mr. NICHOLAS called for the yeas and nays upon this question; which
being agreed to, were taken, and stood--yeas 38, nays 53.

The motion for postponement being lost, the question on agreeing to the
report of the committee recurred.

Mr. BAYARD believed it would not be in order to call for a division of
the question. The resolution implicated two persons, which he thought
improper. If the report of the committee was, however, disagreed to, he
supposed it would then be in order to move for a division of the
question. He should, therefore, vote against the report, as he wished
the cases to be separately considered, as they stood on distinct ground,
and were not attended with the same circumstances; and, reasoning from
analogy, he knew of no instance in a court of justice, where two persons
had ever been included in the same charge when their crimes were
different. If the situation of both these gentlemen had been the same,
there might have been propriety in coupling them together; but as this
was not the case, he was opposed to taking an opinion upon both
together.

Mr. MCDOWELL thought it would be proper to take the same course in this
business as was taken in a former case. He moved, therefore, that the
report be read a second time, for the purpose of committing it to a
committee of the whole House.

Mr. GORDON was opposed to this mode of proceeding. Every one knew the
question, and were as well prepared to decide upon it now, as they would
be after going into a committee upon it.

Mr. GILES thought it would comport more with the dignity of the House to
decide this business without going into a Committee of the Whole, as he
believed every one had made up his mind upon it. If gentlemen intended
by the course heretofore taken to raise the dignity of the House, he
thought they had deceived themselves; for he believed the House was
never in a less dignified attitude than during that discussion.

Mr. MCDOWELL thought the mode he had pointed out necessary, for the sake
of uniformity; but, as other gentlemen seemed to think it unnecessary,
he would withdraw his motion.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS wished to know whether it would be in order to amend the
report of the Committee of Privileges, or to suggest the propriety of
disagreeing to it, for the purpose of substituting a different
punishment from that proposed, viz: that the offending members should be
reprimanded by the Speaker in the presence of the House? He believed
that a punishment of this kind would satisfy many gentlemen who did not
wish to expel the members, but who, at the same time, did not wish they
should go unpunished.

The SPEAKER said that motion would be in order after the report of the
committee was decided upon.

Mr. GALLATIN remarked, that if the report was agreed to, the resolution
for an expulsion would of course be negatived, and then any other
proposition would be in order; and, on the other hand, if the report was
disagreed to, the resolution would be before them, and open to
amendment. Mr. G. said he rose to make an observation upon what fell
from the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD.) That gentleman had said
he would vote against the report, because he wished to distinguish
between the two members. The reason which he gave, though he might have
good reasons for his vote, did not appear to him to be correct. That
gentleman seemed to suppose that the facts for which the two members
were to be expelled, were facts committed at different times, and of a
different nature; whereas the facts for which both were proposed to be
expelled, were offences of the same nature, and committed on the same
day. What related to the previous conduct of the member from Vermont,
was not now under consideration. In order to have that conduct before
them, it would be necessary that a reconsideration of it should be moved
by a member who voted against that member's expulsion, and seconded by
another member who voted on the same side of the question. The argument
of the gentleman from Delaware, therefore, did not apply. He said he
should himself vote in favor of the report of the Committee of
Privileges. He was against expelling either of the gentlemen.

Mr. DANA agreed with the gentleman last up, in his conclusions; but he
did not seem rightly to have understood the argument of the gentleman
from Delaware. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania was acquainted with
legal principles, with established principles relative to punishment, he
must know that no persons can be charged jointly with an offence, except
jointly guilty, and except they had mutually agreed to commit the
offence. The resolution, in its present form, therefore, offended
against established maxims of propriety.

Mr. BAYARD said, the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was
not correct. He had stated that the offences of the two members were the
same in circumstances, and committed at the same time. He apprehended
the two cases were very distinct; as, by the depositions before the
House, it appeared that the offence of the member from Connecticut was
committed _before_ the House was called to order, and that the offence
of the member from Vermont was committed _after_ the House was called to
order. The argument most depended upon in a former case, against the
expulsion of the member from Vermont, was that which insisted that the
act of violence complained of being committed when the House was not in
session, was not a cause of expulsion. If this argument had weight at
that time, it ought also to have weight in the present case. It would,
therefore, be the height of injustice to blend the two cases together;
since there might be cause for expelling one member and not the other.

The SPEAKER observed that every thing which had been said with respect
to a division of the question was out of order, as it could not be
divided. He would also remark, in order to shorten the debate, that the
House was not called to order when the stroke was made by the member
from Vermont upon the member from Connecticut without the bar of the
House.

Mr. HARPER asked, if the report of the committee should not be agreed
to, whether the resolution might not then be agreed to?

The SPEAKER replied, it could not be divided; but a separate resolution
might be brought forward.

The question on agreeing to the report of the committee, which
recommended a disagreement to the resolution for an expulsion of the two
members was then taken, and stood--yeas 73, nays 21.

The resolution for an expulsion having been disagreed to,

Mr. R. WILLIAMS proposed a resolution in the following words:

      "_Resolved_, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, for
      riotous and disorderly behavior in this House, are highly
      censurable, and that they be reprimanded by the Speaker in
      the presence of this House."

Mr. HARPER moved the previous question upon this resolution. He did it,
he said, upon this ground. The House had just decided, and they had
lately decided in another instance, that disorderly conduct shall not be
punished by expulsion; and it was his opinion that no less punishment
than expulsion ought to be inflicted, as he was unwilling to diminish
the reprehensive power of the House, by inflicting what he thought
inadequate punishment for offences of this nature. If there were any
gentlemen who thought this conduct excusable, and that it ought not to
be punished, they would, of course, vote in favor of the previous
question; and those who thought with him, that both ought to be
expelled, would also vote in favor of it.

Mr. NICHOLAS called for the yeas and nays upon this question. Agreed to
be taken.

Mr. GALLATIN said, by the gentleman from South Carolina having moved the
previous question, he had excluded any discussion upon the merits of the
main question. Mr. G. wished some reasons might be given why the main
question ought not to be put. Those given by the gentleman from South
Carolina were applicable to the resolution itself: they were reasons why
he should vote against the resolution, but they did not strike him as
reasons why the question should not at all be taken.

The previous question was then put in this form: "Shall the main
question (viz: the resolution for reprimanding the offending members)
now be put?" And the yeas and nays were taken, and stood--yeas 47, nays
48, as follows:

      YEAS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
      Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Samuel
      J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole
      Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis,
      John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John
      Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert Gallatin, William
      B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna,
      Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister,
      David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew
      Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell,
      John Milledge, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J.
      Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg,
      Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
      Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

      NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jun., Bailey Bartlett,
      James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher
      G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit,
      William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, George Dent, Thos. Evans,
      Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn,
      Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, William Barry Grove,
      Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman,
      Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera,
      Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Lewis R.
      Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, John
      Rutledge, jun., Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas
      Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg
      Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson,
      Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and
      John Williams.


MONDAY, March 5.

_Diplomatic Intercourse._

[After a protracted discussion the question was taken on Mr. Nicholson's
amendment, to wit, to limit the ministers of the highest grade to the
two Courts of London and Paris, and it was negatived--52 to 48.]

A motion was then made for the committee to rise and ask leave to sit
again, which was negatived.

The bill was proceeded with.

Mr. S. Smith moved, to strike out certain words, and to insert others to
this effect:

      "That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall not allow to
      any Minister Plenipotentiary to France, Great Britain, or
      Spain, more than $9,000 per annum, nor to any other
      Minister Plenipotentiary more than $6,000."

This amendment was negatived, there being only 48 votes in its favor.

The blanks in the bill were next to be filled; the first, which was the
permanent allowance, was filled with $40,000; the next, which was an
extraordinary appropriation for this year, with $28,650. Before the
latter sum was agreed upon,

Mr. LIVINGSTON inquired whether the sum of between two and three
thousand dollars, which he thought had been lavished away, said to be
expended on persons taking leave from this country, was included in the
incidental expenses which were contained under this head? He thought
such an expenditure of money forbidden by the constitution.

Mr. HARPER believed the incidental expenses mentioned in the estimate
were expenses of our Ministers abroad.

Mr. NICHOLAS understood that three Secretaries were allowed the mission
at present in France. He thought this was as novel as it was
unnecessary; as he believed one Secretary was sufficient for the whole.
The United States had employed a number of missions at different times,
but never allowed more than one Secretary to each. He had thought the
law would not have warranted the practice; but on examining it, he
supposed it did.

Mr. HARPER said every Minister employed was entitled to a Secretary; the
PRESIDENT had accordingly appointed one to each, and he could not see
upon what ground the House could object to appropriating for their
salaries.

Mr. NICHOLAS answered, that as the law admitted of it, he should not
object to the appropriation but he should move an amendment to prevent
more than one secretary to a mission in future.

The committee then rose and reported the bill with the amendments; which
being taken up in the House and agreed to, Mr. NICHOLAS renewed his
amendment to limit the salaries of Ministers Plenipotentiary to London,
Paris, and Madrid, to nine thousand dollars a year, and all others to
four thousand five hundred dollars, and called the yeas and nays upon
it, which were taken and resulted, yeas 48, nays 52.

Mr. S. SMITH then renewed his motion for limiting the salaries of
Ministers to London, Paris, and Madrid, to nine thousand dollars, and
others to six thousand dollars, and called the yeas and nays upon it,
which were taken, and were exactly the same as upon the former question.

Mr. NICHOLAS then made his motion to confine future missions to one
Secretary, which was negatived--50 to 45.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
to-morrow.


MONDAY, March 19.

_Relations with France._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_, _and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      The despatches from the Envoys Extraordinary of the United
      States to the French Republic, which were mentioned in my
      Message to both Houses of Congress, of the fifth instant,
      have been examined and maturely considered.

      While I feel a satisfaction in informing you that their
      exertions for the adjustment of the differences between the
      two nations have been sincere and unremitted, it is
      incumbent on me to declare that I perceive no ground of
      expectation that the objects of their mission can be
      accomplished on terms compatible with the safety, honor, or
      the essential interests of the nation.

      This result cannot, with justice, be attributed to any want
      of moderation on the part of this Government, or to any
      indisposition to forego secondary interests for the
      preservation of peace. Knowing it to be my duty, and
      believing it to be your wish, as well as that of the great
      body of the people, to avoid, by all reasonable
      concessions, any participation in the contentions of
      Europe, the powers vested in our Envoys were commensurate
      with a liberal and pacific policy, and that high confidence
      which might justly be reposed in the patriotism, abilities,
      and integrity, of the characters to whom the negotiation
      was committed. After a careful review of the whole subject,
      with the aid of all the information I have received, I can
      discern nothing which could have ensured or contributed to
      success that has been omitted on my part; and nothing
      further which can be attempted, consistently with maxims
      for which our country has contended, at every hazard, and
      which constitute the basis of our national sovereignty.

      Under these circumstances, I cannot forbear to reiterate
      the recommendations which have been formerly made, and to
      exhort you to adopt with promptitude, decision, and
      unanimity, such measures as the ample resources of the
      country afford, for the protection of our commercial and
      seafaring citizens; for the defence of any exposed portions
      of our territory; for replenishing our arsenals,
      establishing foundries and military manufactures; and to
      provide such efficient revenue as will be necessary to
      defray extraordinary expenses, and supply the deficiencies
      which may be occasioned by depredations on our commerce.

      The present state of things is so essentially different
      from that in which instructions were given to collectors to
      restrain vessels of the United States from sailing in an
      armed condition, that the principle on which those orders
      were issued has ceased to exist. I therefore deem it proper
      to inform Congress that I no longer conceive myself
      justifiable in continuing them, unless in particular cases,
      where there may be reasonable ground of suspicion that such
      vessels are intended to be employed contrary to law.

      In all your proceedings it will be important to manifest a
      zeal, vigor, and concert, in defence of the national
      rights, proportioned to the danger with which they are
      threatened.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _March 19, 1798_.

This Message was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of
the Union.


FRIDAY, March 23.

_Georgia Limits._

MISSISSIPPI TERRITORY--SLAVERY.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS called for the order of the day on the bill for
organizing and disciplining the militia of the United States.

Mr. GALLATIN thought it better that the House should again go into a
Committee of the Whole on the bill for an amicable settlement of limits
with Georgia, and for the erection of a government in the Mississippi
Territory, as that subject had already undergone some discussion, and
the bill had been reported with the information to obtain which it had
been committed.

The latter business was preferred, and the House accordingly went into a
Committee of the Whole on the subject; when Mr. MILLEDGE'S amendment
being under consideration, for adding to the section for appointing a
provisional Government in the Natchez country, "after the consent of the
Legislature of Georgia shall have been obtained,"

Mr. MILLEDGE observed, that the select committee had now reported all
the documents on which the United States claimed a right to this
territory. As to the title of Georgia, he should not enter into an
inquiry as to that. He would only remark, that the State of Georgia was
as tenacious of her rights as any State in the Union. But he thought it
would not be improper to examine the pretended claim of the United
States to this country. Looking into the journals of the Senate, he
found that on the 3d of March, 1795, a resolution was passed directing
the Attorney General to inquire into and make a report on the subject of
the title of the United States to land in Georgia. No doubt the Attorney
General not only examined the records of the State of Georgia, but those
of the United States, and obtained all the information which he was able
to do in the United States; but not finding sufficient ground upon which
to found a title, he applied to Mr. Bayard, our Commissioner in London,
who obtained a certificate on the subject from a Mr. Chalmers, Secretary
to the Board of Trade and Plantations. Twelve months after he was
directed to do so, the Attorney General made a report on the subject;
but none of the documents which he reported went to establish the claim
of the United States; nor any thing which tends to show that a cession
of West Florida was ever made. But he now found among the papers got
from the Senate, a letter addressed to Mr. Read of the Senate, from Mr.
Livingston of New York, informing him that he encloses an extract from
the instructions given by the King of Great Britain to Governor Chester.
But Mr. Livingston was not known as an official character; and this
document was neither official nor certified. Yet this is the ground upon
which the United States claim this tract of country. Before the General
Government proceeded to erect a temporary government, it ought to have
better information with respect to the nature of its claim; for, to
attempt to establish a government without the consent of Georgia, he
thought would be stepping beyond the constitution, two clauses of which
he quoted. He hoped the general powers placed in Congress for the
defence of the country would not be resorted to in order to sanction the
proceeding. It was said that the inhabitants of the district of country
alluded to were in a situation which called for immediate attention. He
allowed that it would be proper to pay early attention to them; but he
thought, inconvenient as it might be, the erecting of a government might
be deferred until the consent of the Legislature of Georgia could be
obtained. It ought to be remembered that the State of Georgia is a
member of the Union, and that it is her interest to make the cession,
and he had no doubt she would do so. The convention of that State meet
in May, and if application was made to them, he had no doubt the
Legislature would be called together, and consent might be obtained by
the month of July. He was confident the State of Georgia is desirous of
promoting the interests of the United States, and that she is firmly
attached to the Government; all its regulations had been constantly
carried into effect there; and her consent to the establishment of a
provisional government being obtained, every difficulty would be
obviated.

Mr. HARPER did not feel any anxiety to question the desire of the State
of Georgia to promote the interests of the United States, and he was
glad to be informed by her Representative, that she was so well disposed
to the General Government, to which assertion he gave the fullest
credit. He, therefore, should not oppose the motion of the gentleman on
the ground that the State of Georgia would be likely to throw any
obstacles in the way of the proposed temporary government; and he should
be far from supposing, that, by the erection of such a government, the
United States would assume an extra-judicial right to the territory. He
was of opinion that the United States possessed the right to it, and
that the most undeniable evidence of the right existed; but that
evidence was not now before the House, and if it were, they were not the
proper body to decide the question. He believed the amendment ought to
be rejected on the ground of policy. The bill went to provide a
temporary government, but contained an express clause that the
establishment of this government shall not affect the rights of Georgia
with respect to her right of the jurisdiction or soil of this
territory--consequently, the fears of the gentleman are groundless in
this respect. What, then, is the nature of the amendment? It is to
prevent the erection of a temporary government in a district of country
containing upwards of 5,000 souls, lying far beyond the ordinary
jurisdiction of any State, with an immense wilderness intervening, in
which are two nations of Indians, and in the neighborhood of the
territory of a foreign nation, with whom, though we are at present at
peace, when we recollect the connection subsisting between that nation
and another with whom we have differences of a serious nature, we cannot
reckon upon as lasting. Yet this remote and vulnerable corner of the
Union is to be left defenceless for an indefinite period of time, lest
we should possibly give umbrage to the State of Georgia, by providing a
temporary government there before the dispute on the subject of limits
is settled. And whatever may be the good disposition of Georgia towards
the United States, it would require considerable time to obtain the
consent proposed. Their Legislature do not meet till next winter. It was
true, as had been stated, that their convention met in May, and they
might, if they thought proper, call an extraordinary meeting of the
Legislature; but this could not be relied upon. Besides, he saw no
necessity for so much punctilio in this case, for if any State were to
suffer a part of its territory, within its ordinary jurisdiction, to lie
in a defenceless state, the General Government would be warranted in
stepping in to defend it, and certainly they might do it in a case like
the present, where no jurisdiction is exercised. And if this was not
done, the petition of these people set forth, that however unwilling
they should be to do so, they should be obliged to pass over to the
Spanish dominions.

Mr. H. said, he did not wish to have touched upon the question of right;
but as the gentleman from Georgia had said we had none, he felt himself
obliged to say a few words upon that point. He allowed the committee had
not before them evidence of the right which would be admissible in a
court of law; but though it were not such as would be admitted in a
court of law, had it therefore no weight? It was at least equal to what
was every day received by the committees of the House. The question was,
whether the papers before them afforded reason to believe that legal
evidence of the title did exist? It was a copy of a commission and
instructions given by the King of Great Britain to Governor Chester, of
West Florida, in the year 1770, furnished by the gentleman who was
Secretary to the Governor at that time, and whose duty it was to keep
the records of that Government. But the gentleman from Georgia said,
search had been made in the offices of the British Government for the
original, of which this paper was a copy, and it could not be found. But
this was no proof it did not exist. If it does exist, legal evidence may
be obtained from it, and this paper shows that the Natchez country was
included within the territory of West Florida, and that it ceased in the
year 1770 to be a part of Georgia. He believed, however, this question
ought not now to be acted upon; but that from necessity, and the
exigencies of the case, a temporary government ought immediately to be
provided for this district of country, and afterwards settle the point
of right with Georgia by negotiation; and if it was found in the end
that the United States had no title to it, the Government which had been
established could be withdrawn.

But it was stated that the Legislature of Georgia would readily consent
that the United States should become possessed of this country. But what
were the terms upon which they proposed to cede it? They required, as
one of the conditions, a million and a half of dollars in six per cent.
stock, and as another (which was infinitely harder, since it might not
be in our power to comply with it, as it depended upon the will of the
Indians) that the United States will guarantee the relinquishment of the
Indian claim to the land on the east side of the Chatahoochee, within a
certain number of years. There is little hope, therefore, that the State
of Georgia will propose any terms to which the United States can agree,
as it had been seen that the Legislature of that State had rejected a
bill by a great majority, which proposed the price to be one million of
dollars with the other condition. Of course it would be very imprudent
to rest the establishment of a government in this quarter upon an
agreement to terms like these.

Besides, the amendment would affect the right claimed by the United
States. To wait for this consent would be tantamount to confessing we
had no right, and arm Georgia with a strong weapon against us in the
final settlement.

Mr. H. contended that there was nothing in the constitution which could
prevent the proposed measure, since it was absolutely necessary to
preserve the people from falling into anarchy, and to prevent a foreign
Government from putting arms into their hands. It was also a quarter of
the Union which it was necessary to preserve, if we wished to secure the
free navigation of the Mississippi, which we had lately obtained by the
Spanish treaty; for if this country were invaded by the Indians, or
involved in civil war, we could not have the benefit of the navigation
of that river. He hoped, therefore, when so many considerations were
opposed to it, the amendment would be disagreed to.

Mr. NICHOLAS understood from the gentleman from South Carolina, that it
was not intended to insist upon the title of the United States to the
territory in question; and if they were not ripe to decide that the land
is the property of the United States, he thought they ought not to
establish a Government there without paying some respect to the rights
of Georgia, by obtaining her consent, as it might prevent that amicable
settlement of which we had at present the prospect. If that State set
the value upon the land which had been mentioned, would it not excite
the utmost jealousy in that country to take forcible possession of it?
To do this would certainly be to establish an influence in favor of the
United States, which would be fatal to the claim of Georgia. No argument
had been adduced to show the right of the United States to this
territory, but merely to show the convenience of the measure. The
gentleman from South Carolina might as well say that a certain district
in Virginia is not so well governed as it might be, and, as the people
would be happier under the Government of the United States, propose to
take possession of it. But it was said Georgia had not begun to govern
this territory. Neither have the United States. She may, for aught we
know, be preparing to do it now. He thought there was not a shadow of
pretence for taking the course proposed, without first consulting the
Legislature of Georgia. He hoped the amendment would be agreed to.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said it appeared to him, that if this amendment were to
prevail, the bill might as well be voted out altogether. The bill had
two objects, viz: a settlement of limits, and the fixing of a temporary
government. It was clear to him, from the papers before the committee,
that the United States had a clear title to the country in question,
and, if this was not the case, there was a saving clause in favor of the
Georgia claim. He thought that State ought to be happy at the idea of
the United States fixing a government there, as it would assist them in
their defence against the Indians. If gentlemen turned to the acts of
Congress, it would be found what a vast expense the United States had
heretofore been put to in defending the frontier of that country. He
thought that State had been dealt with in a very favorable manner. It
was not long since $100,000 were paid to their militia for defending
their frontier. He complimented the gentleman from Georgia for having
advocated so ably the cause of his State. But he thought that State
ought to come forward and show what title she had to the country. It had
been ceded to the United States by the Spanish Treaty, and the
inhabitants there had a claim upon the General Government for
protection, and surely if the State of Georgia for ever refused to give
its consent to a government being established there, they were not for
ever to be without government. The people there had petitioned Congress
for a government, of which doubtless the State of Georgia was
acquainted; and they ought to come forward in the business. Their
silence proved to him that they had no title to that country. Mr. W.
referred to the manner in which other cessions had been made to the
Union, and said he thought Georgia ought to rejoice at the proposed
establishment, as it would not only be benefiting that State, but the
Union at large.

Mr. MACON said if the bill was intended to be conformable to the title,
the amendment ought certainly to be agreed to; as, if the United States
undertook to establish a government at the Natchez, without the consent
of Georgia, it could not be said to be amicably done. This, he said, was
neither the proper time nor place of deciding to whom this territory
belongs. The great object ought to be to get a government there, and not
to talk about what had been done for Georgia. And if the consent of
Georgia could be obtained previous to the establishment of this
government, it was certainly desirable that it should be obtained. This
would not injure the claim of either. When this was done, some mode
might be agreed upon by which the dispute at present subsisting, might
be settled. This course would prevent any difficulties, and the consent
might be obtained by the time the government could take effect.

Mr. OTIS said if the object of the present bill, could be obtained in a
mode which would preserve the rights of all parties as they at present
stand, such a course would be preferable to that which should appear to
relinquish the right of one of the parties. It struck him that this
might be effected by the bill as it now stands. The United States
assumed their right to the land, yet they do not say they mean to turn a
deaf ear to the claim of Georgia. But, if the amendment were adopted, it
would go to relinquish the title of the United States, and this, he
thought, would be an excess of complaisance to the State of Georgia. The
only plausible reason given in favor of the amendment was, that if the
bill passed without it, it would give offence to, and excite jealousy
in, the State of Georgia. But how? Because Congress passes an act to
settle the interfering claims, and directs the appointment of
commissioners to give them a compensation for what we might take without
it? Or, because we say we will enter upon the territory, to which we
always laid claims, in order to preserve peace and order among the
inhabitants, and to secure it against the attack of the Indians or of a
foreign power? Gentlemen seem to take it for granted that Georgia has
possession of this territory; whereas those who oppose the amendment,
contend it is a vacant possession, and that we have a right to take
possession of it, to hold it, not until an army is raised to take it
from us, but until the legal question of right shall be decided. And it
could not be said that there was any thing offensive in this. If a man,
for instance, were to enter upon a piece of land, and say he would never
give it up until he was driven from it, it would certainly be an act of
violence; but if he enter upon it only to take care of it, until a legal
decision can be had as to his right, such an act was perfectly
justifiable; and this was intended in the present case.

Mr. KITTERA hoped, if the bill passed at all, it would be without the
amendment. This territory was never yet governed either by the United
States or Georgia, but had been ceded to the United States by Spain, in
our late treaty with that power, and we ought to retain possession of it
until the title to it was clear. In this view of the subject, he could
not see how the State of Georgia could take offence at our holding the
territory until the existing dispute was settled.

Mr. BALDWIN said it was to be regretted, as this was the last instance
in which this question of cession could be presented to Congress, that
the situation of the persons settled upon this territory was such as
should seem to constrain gentlemen to depart from the course of their
former proceedings on this subject. He was fully impressed with the
situation of that people; but he thought little delay would be
occasioned by the proposed application to the State of Georgia; nor
would that consent weaken, as had been suggested, the title of the
United States. Or, if there was any force in the objection, it might be
guarded against by adding a few words in the section which speaks of
preserving the claim of Georgia as it now stands.

Mr. B. said, gentlemen who had turned their attention to the map, would
find that the territory in question is situate at the south-west corner
of the United States; the southern boundary is latitude 31, and the
western boundary the Mississippi, which is also the boundary of the
United States. Its extent is about 280 miles north and south, and coming
this way, about 400 miles. That part upon which this bill is bottomed,
is little more than one-third part of the whole of that territory. The
United States now reckon latitude 32-1/2 as the boundary of Georgia; but
in the treaty, and till very lately, it was always reckoned to be 31,
which is also the boundary of the United States. This was, at any rate,
a new discovery--the official documents in support of which he had not
seen. It was now supposed that West Florida extends to latitude 32-1/2,
and not to 31, which is one degree and a half more than formerly
supposed. If this were so, he wondered it had never before been
discovered by England or Spain. Why was the boundary of the United
States always fixed at 31? He feared, that since it became our interest
to extend the boundary, we had suffered that interest to color our
judgment. The instructions drawn out for our Minister by a former
Secretary of State were, "you are to contend for latitude 31." The
ground upon which he had stated this, Mr. B. thought irresistible, and
it was thought we might risk a war upon it. Besides, this bill would not
cure the evil for which it was intended. There might be inhabitants
still further north; this bill provides only for such as are settled
within what had been called the Province of West Florida. Mr. B. said,
he had never seen the documents which authorized this extension. He had,
indeed, seen the remarks of Mr. Chalmers, who, he believed, was
Secretary to the Board of Trade and Plantations in London; but he
believed he had drawn what he had said from the same document which was
now reported, viz: the extract from the copy of the instructions said to
have been given to Governor Chester; but the order of King and Council
for extending it, the Attorney General says, in page 11th of his report,
is not to be found.

Gentlemen had said, why does not the State of Georgia manifest a
disposition to make some arrangements respecting the territory in
question. They had done so. After the Revolutionary war in 1783 or
1784, when there was an expectation that the forts would have been
evacuated, they laid out a county there, and all the titles were
declared good, and where there was no other title occupancy was declared
to be sufficient, and warrants were to be issued accordingly. When he
first came to attend his duty in Congress, the Minister from Spain
arrived about the same time, when he put in the claim of Spain to this
territory, which prevented any thing further from being done; and as
soon as it was found that the arrangements made by Georgia gave umbrage
to the Spanish Government, they were given up.

In the year 1788, the State of Georgia passed an act for making the
cession of this territory to the United States. This act Congress
referred to a committee, which reported that Government ought not to
accept of the cession on the terms proposed. He believed the same
disposition to make the cession which always had existed, now existed.
He believed the disposition of the government of Georgia was as
favorable to the interests of the United States as that of any other
State. He did not rise to speak their praises; but he could not sit to
hear them blamed without notice.

If the proposed government was proceeded with without the consent of
Georgia, it would be a dereliction of principle. He thought some sort of
regulation might be made among the people for their own government,
until Georgia was applied to. This was not a new case. There had been
great settlements in several parts of the country long before any
government was provided for them. Mr. B. said, he did not mean to
undervalue the claim of the United States; they had always a claim in
every case of cession, but he hoped, except there was an absolute
necessity for it, the usual course of proceeding would not be departed
from.

Mr. GORDON said, the gentleman from Georgia complained that a different
course was proposed now to be taken than had been adopted heretofore. In
answer to this, it was sufficient to say, that where the circumstances
of cases differed, different courses were necessary. With respect to the
merits of the bill, he thought it stood right at present. The situation
of the people in the district alluded to, was such as required immediate
attention. If gentlemen were not convinced of this, he saw no necessity
for going into the business before the subsisting dispute between
Georgia and the United States was settled. He believed, however, there
was no doubt of the fact; and surely the gentleman from Georgia would
not wish that these people should live under a military government for
any length of time. Being satisfied of this point, he wished the bill to
pass without the amendment, as that might defeat altogether the purpose
of the bill. The claim of Georgia he looked upon at least as doubtful;
and as he considered the United States as bound to protect all its
citizens, he thought they would not be justified in returning these
people for answer, "we cannot attend to your wants until we have settled
our dispute with Georgia." Georgia might refuse to negotiate the
subject, and by that means protract the business in a manner which would
be very inconvenient, and perhaps drive the people under another
government. Besides, if Georgia should refuse its consent to the
establishment of a government in that quarter, it would, nevertheless,
be proper to establish one. The United States, Mr. G. said, came into
possession of this territory by treaty. But suppose it was now in
possession of a foreign power, would Georgia attempt to drive them from
it? Certainly not. It would amount to the making of war on a foreign
power. Suppose Georgia had a title to this territory, had not the United
States the power of depriving Georgia of it? Suppose, in their treaty
with Spain, the United States had surrendered to Spain one-half of this
land, or the whole of it, Georgia would have been bound by such an act;
and having got this territory by treaty, they had certainly a right to
establish a provisional government over it, until the dispute, as to the
title, was settled.

The question of this amendment was put and negatived by 46 to 24.

Mr. THATCHER rose and said, he should make a motion, touching the rights
of man, by moving to strike out the excepting clause in the 3d section
of the bill. [It appears that in the ordinance establishing a government
in the North-western Territory, slavery is expressly forbidden, and this
section of the bill directs that a government similar in all respects to
that established in the North-western Territory shall be established in
the Mississippi Territory, except that slavery shall not be forbidden.]

Mr. HARPER did not believe his friend's motion would be a proper mode of
supporting the rights of man. In the North-western Territory the
regulation forbidding slavery was a very proper one, as the people
inhabiting that part of the country were from parts where slavery did
not prevail, and they had of course no slaves amongst them; but in the
Mississippi Territory it would be very improper to make such a
regulation, as that species of property already exists, and persons
emigrating there from the Southern States would carry with them property
of this kind. To agree to such a proposition would, therefore, be a
decree of banishment to all the persons settled there, and of exclusion
to all those intending to go there. He believed it could not, therefore,
be carried into effect, as it struck at the habits and customs of the
people.

Mr. VARNUM did not know that the gentleman from South Carolina wished to
promote the rights of man. His observations showed, at least, that he
did not wish to support the rights of all men; for where there was a
disposition to retain a part of our species in slavery, there could not
be a proper respect for the rights of mankind. It was true that this
kind of property is held in the Southern States, because they cannot,
consistent with the safety of the people of those States, liberate them
on account of their very great numbers. But they considered it as a
great burden to be obliged to hold them. He hoped, therefore, Congress
would have so much respect for the rights of humanity as not to legalize
the existence of slavery any farther than it at present exists. He
believed the gentleman from South Carolina was mistaken in saying that
such a regulation would oblige all the inhabitants settled in this
territory to remove. The provision need only extend to the forbidding of
slaves being taken there. What, said he, is the situation of the
North-western Territory at this time? Land there is worth more than in
some of the old settled States; and he believed this high price of land,
and prosperous condition of the country, was entirely owing to the
absence of slavery. And if the Southern States could get clear of their
slaves, the price of their land would immediately double. At any rate,
he hoped the United States would prevent an increase of this calamity;
for he looked upon the practice of holding blacks in slavery in this
country to be equally criminal with that of the Algerines carrying our
citizens into slavery.

Mr. RUTLEDGE wished the gentleman from Massachusetts would withdraw his
motion, not from any apprehension he had that it would obtain; but he
hoped that he would not indulge himself and others in uttering
philippics against a practice with which his and their philosophy is at
war. He submitted to the gentleman's candor whether it was proper, on
every occasion, to do this--to bring forward the Southern States in an
odious light, or to give his neighbor and colleague an opportunity of
bringing them forward, and comparing them with Algerines! He thought
propriety and decency towards other members required that such language
should be checked. He believed, if his friend from Massachusetts had
recollected that the most angry debate which had taken place during this
session was occasioned by a motion on this subject, he would not have
brought forward the present question. One gentleman says, you call these
men property; another, you hold these men in chains; a third, you
violate the rights of man! And are not these men property? Do not the
people in this territory hold them as such? Did they not hold them under
the Spanish Government? And must we thus address these people: "We have
made a treaty which puts you under the mild government of the United
States, but we must take from you your property; or rather, we must set
your blacks at liberty to cut your throats. The rights of man was the
watch-word of the day, and Congress have determined that you shall not
possess this property. They cannot as yet do slavery away
altogether--the day is not yet arrived; but they have determined it
shall not exist in the Mississippi Territory."

These, said Mr. R., are not mere speculative opinions. They lead to
more mischief than gentlemen are aware of; and he trusted if the
gentleman from Massachusetts could be convinced that the discussion of
such questions as the present did much mischief in certain parts of the
Union, he would not bring them forward. He hoped he would withdraw the
present motion.

Mr. GORDON thought that when the gentleman from Massachusetts
recollected that, by the establishment of this government, the United
States do not establish their exclusive right to this territory, he
would consent to withdraw his amendment, as that went to say that we had
the absolute right of jurisdiction, and were determined to exercise it;
and in making a difference between the ground on which property was held
there from that on which it was held in Georgia, they would militate
against the 5th section of the bill.

Mr. OTIS hoped his colleague would not withdraw his motion; and the
reason why he wished this was, that an opportunity might be given to
gentlemen who came from the same part of the Union with him to manifest
that it is not their disposition to interfere with the Southern States
as to the species of property in question. With respect to the existence
of slavery, the House had often heard gentlemen, who are owners of
slaves, declare that it is not their fortune, but their misfortune that
they possess them, but who still keep them, and claim the right of
managing them as they think proper. He thought it was not the business
of those who had nothing to do with that kind of property to interfere
with that right; and he really wished that the gentlemen who held slaves
might not be deprived of the means of keeping them in order.

If the amendment prevailed, it would declare that no slavery should
exist in the Natchez country. This would not only be a sentence of
banishment, but of war. An immediate insurrection would probably take
place, and the inhabitants would not be suffered to retire in peace, but
be massacred on the spot. By permitting slavery in this district of
country, the number of slaves would not be increased--as if emigrants
from South Carolina or Georgia were to remove into this country they
would take their slaves with them; and he could see nothing in this
which could affect the philanthropy of his friend. The North-western
Territory is inhabited by a description of persons who have not been
accustomed to hold slaves, and therefore the restriction is agreeable to
them; but the territory in question will be settled by people from the
Southern States, who cannot cultivate the ground without slaves. He
hoped, however, the motion would be persisted in, and negatived by a
large majority.

Mr. D. FOSTER hoped, if the motion was not withdrawn, that a long debate
might not be had upon it.

Mr. THATCHER said he should not withdraw his motion, and the more it was
opposed, believing his cause to be good, the more obstinate he should
be in its support.

Mr. GILES wished to suggest a single idea. The present motion was
brought forward from the avowed motive of furthering the rights of man.
He did not know whether the tendency of it was calculated to ameliorate
the condition of the class of men alluded to; he believed not. On the
contrary, it was his opinion, that if the slaves of the Southern States
were permitted to go into this Western country, by lessening the number
in those States, and spreading them over a large surface of country,
there would be a greater probability of ameliorating their condition,
which could never be done whilst they were crowded together as they now
are in the Southern States.

Mr. HARTLEY said, he had himself intended to have brought forward an
amendment similar to the present, but, on inquiry, he found so many
difficulties in the way, that he was obliged to abandon it. He found it
would interfere with, and be a serious attack upon, the property of that
country. He was sorry it was not in the power of Congress to gratify the
wishes of philanthropists in this respect, by doing away slavery
altogether; but this could not be done at present, and as he believed
the present amendment, if carried, would be attended with bad effects,
he should vote against it.

Mr. GALLATIN said, if he saw any of the great inconveniences which were
foretold as likely to arise from this amendment, he should certainly
vote against it. He should be extremely averse to the adoption of any
principle which should either directly or indirectly lead to the
production of any commotion or insurgency in any State where there is a
great number of slaves. He did not see how any such effect could be
produced by the present motion; for, notwithstanding what had fallen
from the gentleman from South Carolina, it did not appear to him how a
regulation with respect to another Territory can affect the peace,
tranquillity, or property of any other State. How the forbidding of
slavery in the Mississippi Territory could produce a worse effect than
the same regulation in the North-western Territory, or in Pennsylvania,
or in several other States. The amendment, therefore, could not be
opposed on that ground; it must be on some other. Ought it to be
rejected on the ground of jurisdiction? Certainly not. The United States
intend to exercise jurisdiction over that Territory, and was there any
more reason for excepting this jurisdiction than any other? If we
establish this Government we expect it to be permanent; and if we
believe it is not conducive to the happiness of any people, but the
contrary, to legalize slavery, when we are about to form a constitution
for a Territory, its establishment ought to be prevented. But, if this
amendment is rejected, we establish slavery for the country, not only
during its temporary government, but for all the time it is a State;
for, by the constant admission of slaves, the number will increase to a
certain degree, and when the Territory shall become a State, the
interest of the holders will be such as to procure a constitution which
shall admit of slavery, and it will be thereby made permanent. Having
determined slavery was bad policy for the North-western Territory, he
saw no reason for a contrary determination with respect to this
Territory.

There was, then, only one solitary objection to the amendment, and that
might easily be obviated. It was with respect to the situation of the
people already settled there who are possessed of slaves. It would be
extremely impolitic and unjust to declare by ordinance that the people
settled there, either under the British, Spanish, or Georgia
governments, should be deprived of this kind of property; and if this
was the effect of the amendment, he would vote against it. Such a
regulation would be attended with the worst of consequences; but other
words may be easily introduced to guarantee the property of the persons
already settled there.

By the laws of the different States, Mr. G. said, the importation of
slaves is forbidden; but if this amendment does not obtain, he knew not
how slaves could be prevented from being introduced by the way of New
Orleans, by persons who are not citizens of the United States. He hoped,
therefore, the amendment would be agreed to.

Mr. NICHOLAS believed it not only to be the interest of the Southern
States, but of the United States, that this motion should be rejected.
They were to legislate for the whole of the Union, and ought to consult
the happiness of the whole. It was not for them to attempt to make a
particular spot of country more happy than all the rest. If it was a
misfortune to the Southern States to be overwhelmed with this kind of
property, he asked if it would not be doing service not only to them but
to the whole Union, to open this Western country, and by that means
spread the blacks over a large space, so that in time it might be safe
to carry into effect the plan which certain philanthropists have so much
at heart, and to which he had no objection, if it could be effected,
viz: the emancipation of this class of men? And when this country shall
have become sufficiently populous to become a State, and the Legislature
wishes to discountenance slavery, the increase of slaves may be
prevented, and such means taken to get rid of slavery altogether,
perhaps in conjunction with other parts of the United States, who by
that time may be in such a situation as to admit of it, as shall appear
prudent and proper.

Mr. THATCHER was of an opinion directly opposite to the gentleman who
had just sat down. Indeed, they seldom did agree in sentiment; to-day
they differed very widely. He believed the true interest and happiness
of the United States would be promoted by agreeing to this amendment;
because its tendency was to prevent the increase of an evil which was
acknowledged by the very gentlemen themselves who are owners of slaves.
Indeed the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) had frequently
declared in that House, that slavery was an evil of great magnitude. In
this respect they agreed in opinion; for he considered the existence of
slavery in the United States as the greatest of evils, an evil in direct
hostility to the principles of our Government; and he believed the
Government had the right to take all due measures to diminish and
destroy the evil, although in doing it they might injure the property of
some individuals; for he never could be brought to believe that an
individual can have a right in any thing which goes to the destruction
of our Government, viz: that he can have a right in a wrong. A property
in slaves is founded in wrong, and never can be right. He believed
Government must of necessity put a stop to this evil, and the sooner
they entered upon the business the better.

Mr. T. said, he honestly confessed he did not like to hear much said in
that House about the rights of man; because of late there had been much
quackery as to these rights. But, because these rights had been abused,
it did not follow that man has no rights. Where legislators are freely
chosen by the people, and frequently renewed; where a law cannot be
passed without affecting the interests of the persons who pass it, these
rights cannot greatly be abused; but, when we take upon us to legislate
for men against their will, it is proper enough to say something about
the rights of man, and to remind others, who are frequently heard
speaking of these rights, that by nature these enslaved men are entitled
to rights; and on that account it was, when he made this motion, that he
said he would make a motion touching the rights of man.

The reasons offered against the amendment by the gentleman from
Virginia, were a little singular. He contended that certain States were
overflowing with slaves, and if not colonized by opening this wide tract
of country to them, they would not be able to keep or manage them. He
always thought that colonizing these people tended to increase the race
far beyond what it would be when penned closely together.

Mr. GILES explained, by saying, that he had said nothing about
decreasing the number of blacks, but of spreading them over a larger
surface of country.

Mr. THATCHER said, he understood the gentleman's argument perfectly;
though he did not seem to understand it himself. The gentleman wished to
take the blacks away from places where they are huddled up together, and
spread them over this territory; they wished to get rid of them, and to
plague others with them. But they had them, and if they determined to
keep them, he wished only they should be plagued with them.

We are, said Mr. T. about to establish a Government for a new country.
Ours originated from, and was founded on the rights of man, upon which
ground we mean to protect it, and could there be any propriety in
emanating a government from ours, in which slavery is not only
tolerated, but sanctioned by law? Certainly not.

It was used as an argument against this amendment that this Territory
would be peopled by emigrants from the Southern States, who cannot work
for themselves; and on that account they must have slaves to work for
them. If this be true, it makes the people of the Southern States only
fit to superintend slaves. The language of this is, that these people
cannot subsist, except they have slaves to work for them.

For the reason he had stated, he hoped the amendment would be agreed to;
but if gentlemen thought those who at present hold slaves in the
Territory should be protected in them, he should not be opposed to their
holding them for a limited period.

The question was put and negatived, there being only 12 votes in its
favor.

Adjourned till Monday.[29]


MONDAY, March 26.

_Georgia Limits._

MISSISSIPPI TERRITORY--SLAVERY.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
bill for an amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia;
when, after striking out the words "claiming under it," in the fifth
section, and adding two new sections, the committee rose, the House
concurred in the amendments, and the bill was ordered to be read a third
time to-morrow.

One of the sections was moved by Mr. MILLEDGE, and was in the following
words:

      "That, from and after the establishment of the said
      government, the people of the aforesaid territory shall be
      entitled to and enjoy all and singular the rights,
      privileges, and advantages, granted to the people of the
      territory of the United States north-west of the river
      Ohio, in and by the aforesaid ordinance of the 13th day of
      July, in the year 1787, in as full and ample manner as the
      same are possessed and enjoyed by the people of the said
      last-mentioned territory."

The other, moved by Mr. HARPER, was to the following effect:

      "That, from and after the establishment of the aforesaid
      government, it shall not be lawful for any person to import
      or bring into the said territory, from any part or place
      without the limits of the United States, any slave or
      slaves, on pain of forfeiting three hundred dollars for
      every slave so brought, one-half to the United States, and
      the other half to the person who shall sue for the same;
      and every person so imported shall be entitled to and
      receive his or her freedom."

When this section was proposed, Mr. THATCHER moved to strike out the
words "without the limits of the United States," so as to have made it
unlawful to have brought any slave there; but the motion was not
seconded.


TUESDAY, March 27.

The bill from the Senate for an amicable settlement of limits with the
State of Georgia, was passed with amendments.

_Relations with France._

Mr. BALDWIN hoped the House would now resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union.

After a few observations from Mr. SEWALL against, and from Mr. NICHOLAS
in favor of going into the business of the Union, the House resolved
itself into a Committee of the Whole on that subject, Mr. DENT in the
chair; when the PRESIDENT'S Message of the 19th instant having been
read,

Mr. SPRIGG rose and observed, that every subject which came before the
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union must necessarily be
important; but he believed there never was any more so than that which
was presented to them by the Message of the PRESIDENT which had been
read. Separated as we are from Europe by an immense ocean, it were to be
wished that we were equally separated from its political concerns, and
that we should have to do with them no farther than what relates to
commerce. This, unhappily, had not been the case, and there now existed
painful differences between this country and the French Republic. The
Message which had just been read was an evidence of this. In this
situation of things, it appeared necessary that the House should declare
whether this country was to have peace or war. This was a subject in
which the best interests of the Union were deeply concerned, and he
hoped the business would be met fully and fairly. The PRESIDENT had
informed the House that the present state of things is changed from what
it was when he prohibited the arming of merchant vessels, and that
therefore he had withdrawn that prohibition. Whether the order formerly
issued by the PRESIDENT for this purpose was in conformity to the spirit
or letter of the law, was not of importance now to inquire; the effect
had been beneficial, and in the same proportion as the prohibition had
been beneficial would be the evils of withdrawing it. In order to
ascertain the sense of the committee upon what measures may be proper to
be taken in the present crisis, he should offer the following
resolutions to their consideration:

      _Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that
      under existing circumstances, it is not expedient for the
      United States to resort to war against the French Republic.

      _Resolved_, _&c._, That provision ought to be made by law
      for restricting the arming of merchant vessels, except in
      cases in which the practice was heretofore permitted.

      _Resolved_, _&c._, That adequate provision shall be made by
      law for the protection of our sea-coast, and for the
      internal defence of the country.

The first resolution being taken up,

Mr. SITGREAVES said that, for himself, he could not agree to the
proposed resolution. He did not mean, by this disagreement, to express
an opinion, that, at this moment, it was expedient to go to war with the
French Republic; but he thought the formal declaration of the contrary
sentiment was highly improper. The present is a period of menace and of
danger, of injury and outrage, and whatever might be the expediency of
the actual crisis, yet he had no hesitation to avow his belief that the
time is not far distant when war must be resorted to, or the national
honor and interest be abandoned. The conduct of France was calculated to
excite or justify no other expectation; and under such circumstances,
with such prospects, he could by no means consent to a formal
declaration of non-resistance. Besides, it is contrary to the usual and
ordinary course of Legislative proceeding, to pass mere negative
resolutions. The power of declaring war being vested in the Congress, so
long as the Congress shall forbear to declare war, it is a sufficient
expression of their sentiment that such a declaration would be
inexpedient: it is the only proper expression of such a sentiment; and
it can be no more right to resolve that we will not resort to war, than
it would be to pass an act to declare it would be inexpedient to make a
law for the regulation of bankruptcy or any other municipal concern.
However desirable, therefore, he admitted unanimity to be, at a time
like the present, he found it impossible to agree to the resolution.

Mr. BALDWIN did not agree with the gentleman last up; he thought the
resolution proper and free from exception. We were, he said,
twenty-three years ago, when we were about beginning the war with Great
Britain, in a situation similar to the present; but we were then without
many advantages which we now have. We were then without any common tie,
except what arose from common interest. No means existed of holding
conference together, but nature pointed out the course to be taken, and
representatives from different parts of the country were travelling at
the same moment to hold counsel together, and to speak their sentiments.
The gentleman who has just taken his seat apprehends war must be the
consequence of our present situation.

Mr. B. said this was the first time that the question of declaring war
had ever presented itself, and upon which, he believed, there might be a
difference of opinion as to the exercise of that power. He did not mean
to say wantonly that our constitution is imperfect; but every society
which has a written constitution must have recourse to it for direction.
It would be improper therefore to inquire what agency the Legislature
ought to have in the declaring of war; whether it is not proper that all
the circumstances relative to such a state should be before them. He did
not believe it was intended that this House should merely be the
instrument to give the sound of war; the subject seemed to be placed
wholly in the hands of the Legislature. This was the understanding of
the country when there was no Government in existence, and he believed
this was the meaning of the constitution. The country is now every where
agitating this question of peace or war, and he trusted they would not
be left to grope their way in the dark on this important question. The
PRESIDENT had informed the House that all hopes of a negotiation were at
an end. He was willing to take the information as it was given, without
going into the Cabinet of the Executive, and to take measures
accordingly. But when some persons declare that the present state of
things is already a state of war; that the country is going on in it;
that the die is cast, and that we have nothing to do but to go on with
it as well as we can, if the House does not believe this to be a true
position, this resolution ought to be agreed to, which went to say that
the House does not consider the present a state of war, but a state of
peace.

Mr. OTIS said, if the gentleman who made the motion would consent to use
the constitutional words on this occasion, he apprehended there would be
no difference of opinion. He meant that instead of saying "to resort to
war," to say "to declare war."

Mr. SPRIGG said, the resolution which he had proposed had not been the
work of a moment, and he did not feel disposed to make the alterations
proposed.

Mr. OTIS added, then he should propose to strike out the words "resort
to," and insert "declare," as he was of opinion with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, (Mr. SITGREAVES,) that the only subjects fit for
discussion were active measures, and that it was not regular to declare
when they would not do a thing.

Mr. PINCKNEY was desirous of settling this motion by the previous
question; but he was informed by the Chair that such a motion would not
be in order in a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, that he hoped his friend from
Massachusetts would withdraw the motion he had just offered, in order to
make room for one he had to offer, which would render the first
resolution more general, more innocent, and yet equally or more
efficacious, and would test the sincerity of the advocates of that
resolution as to their professed anxiety for the maintenance of peace.
Upon Mr. OTIS withdrawing his motion, Mr. D. moved to strike out the
words "against the French Republic" and declared that although he deemed
the whole resolution unnecessary, and considered it as not naturally
growing out of the PRESIDENT'S Message, which did not call upon us to
declare or make war, yet as it must be the intention of the mover, or of
some other member to follow it up with like declarations in relation to
all other nations with whom the United States had any intercourse,
provided they acted consistently, he thought it better to make the
resolution a general one, even if it should be afterwards negatived. He,
for himself, was as ready to say that, under existing circumstances, it
was as expedient for the United States to go to war with any other
nation as with the French Republic. He saw no reason why that
particular power should be singled out in the manner proposed; and as he
was for cultivating peace, not with one only, but with all the nations
of the world, he was willing so to declare his disposition, if any
declaration was proper on the occasion. It was also to be observed, that
it could not with propriety be objected against the amendment that there
was no other nation with whom we were in danger of entering into
hostility, for the tables of the House had been loaded with
communications relative to the encroachments and unreasonable demands of
another country, which had occasioned an apprehension that the United
States would be driven to the necessity of a war in order to obtain
possession of its own territory. If, therefore, gentlemen were anxious
to cultivate harmony with the French only, then the resolution as first
moved, was proper for their adoption; but if the preservation of peace
with all was their real object, then he trusted that the amendment could
not with propriety be rejected by those gentlemen who had introduced and
advocated a proposition the utility of which, under any modification, he
owned for himself, he could not discern, although he was willing to
render it as unexceptionable as possible before it was decided upon.

Mr. SPRIGG informed the gentleman from New Jersey that the reason why
the French Republic was inserted in the resolution was because it was
founded on the Message of the PRESIDENT, which related solely to the
French Republic. For his part, he was not desirous of war with any power
on earth.

Mr. HARPER seconded the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey, because
he thought it would be better in that shape. He had no particular
objection to the resolution as proposed, only that he thought it a
resolution about nothing; but as it might gratify the mover and some
others, he should not object to it. He was not himself disposed for war,
but for peace, while peace could be preserved. But he never said, and
would not say, that war was the worst thing which could happen to this
country; he thought submission to the aggressions of a foreign power
infinitely worse. If gentlemen meant by agreeing to this resolution, to
prevent the country from being put into a state of defence; if they
meant by it to effect an entering wedge to submission, he trusted they
would find themselves mistaken; for though he believed the true interest
of the country lay in peace, yet he was not disposed to recede from any
measures which he thought proper through fear of war. Or did gentlemen
intend, by this question of peace or war, to enlist the popular
prejudices in favor of peace, in order to prevent proper measures being
taken for the defence of the country? If this was their view he should
be the first to strip off the disguise. He trusted that this was not the
case, as he saw it connected with another resolution which proposed the
taking of measures for the defence of the country. The question at
present, said Mr. H., is not a question of war, but of defence; and no
two questions are more distinct. If gentlemen confound these two
questions, and are determined to take no measures of defence lest they
should lead to war, let them say so. He believed, however, the
distinction was well understood by the American people.

Mr. GILES believed this the proper time to declare whether the country
should remain in peace or go to war. He thought the resolution proper as
it stood, because founded on the Message of the PRESIDENT, in which the
French Republic is only named. There was a part of that Message, he
said, which, in his opinion, amounted to a declaration of war. The
PRESIDENT tells the House, "that the situation of things is materially
changed since he issued his order to prevent the arming of merchant
vessels." As far as he understood the situation of the United States at
that time, it was a state of neutrality. If that state is changed, and
the present is not a state of neutrality, he wished to know what is. He
knew only of two states, a state of neutrality and a state of war; he
knew of no mongrel state between them. Therefore, if the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, could declare war, we are now in war. Believing,
however, that Congress had alone the power to declare war, he thought it
time to declare what the state of the nation is. He did not know whether
the object might not be answered by the resolution being general, as he
was and always had been (notwithstanding insinuations to the contrary)
against war with any nation upon the earth. He looked upon it as the
greatest calamity which could befal any nation; and whatever may be the
phantoms raised in perspective of national honor and glory in such a
state, they will, in the end, all prove fallacious. He believed no
nation ought to go to war except when attacked; and this kind of war he
should be as ready to meet as any one. Mr. G. said, gentlemen were
continually speaking of the degraded state of the nation, when their own
measures had led to it. (Mr. HARPER denied that he had ever said the
nation was in a degraded state.) Mr. G. was not sure that he had said
it, but he believed he had frequently heard it. He believed we were in a
state which required the utmost vigor; but he thought every measure
should be avoided which might involve the country in war. For if we were
to go to war with the French at present, he knew not what ever could
take place which could produce peace; it must be a war of extermination.
Mr. G. did not know that the present question was very important; but
believing it strictly conformable to the Message of the PRESIDENT, he
should be in favor of it as it stood, and against the amendment.

Mr. NICHOLAS considered this amendment as defeating the resolution. Was
there nothing, he asked, which called for a declaration of the kind
proposed? Was it not clear to every one that the country was going fast
into a state of war, and (in the words of Mr. SITGREAVES) was it not to
be expected? Ought not the Legislature then, (who alone have the power
of declaring war,) to determine the state of the country, and say
whether they mean to go immediately to war or not? He thought the
necessity of the resolution was sufficiently evident, by the motion
which had been made to change the words from "resort to war," to declare
war; in the one case the mischief was met, whilst the other meant
nothing. And if gentlemen were ready to say we were not prepared to
declare war, and at the same were not ready to say it is not expedient
to resort to war, it proved that they thought war might be made without
being declared. He asked whether gentlemen did not believe the Executive
had taken measures which would lead to war? And that if he were at
liberty to act upon a change of circumstances between this country and
others, Congress were not brought into a situation in which they had no
choice? Many discussions had heretofore taken place on the constitution,
but he had never heard it doubted that Congress had the power over the
progress of what led to war, as well as the power of declaring war; but
if the PRESIDENT could take the measures which he had taken, with
respect to arming merchant vessels, he, and not Congress, had the power
of making war. He asked whether, when report went so far as to speak of
an alliance, offensive and defensive, with a foreign country, it was not
time to come to a declaration on the subject? Suppose such an alliance
was formed, would it not be said that Congress are bound to carry it
into effect? He knew it would, though he should resist the doctrine. Mr.
N. said, he should be as unwilling to submit to any foreign country as
the gentleman from South Carolina; but he could not, like that
gentleman, say he was not afraid of war. I am, said he, afraid of it.
This country affords me all the happiness I can wish or hope for, and I
know war will be destructive to it. What was the difference between
himself and that gentleman in this respect, he could not tell; it was to
him surprising that any gentleman should be without fear as to the
mischiefs of war. He was of opinion that the step taken by the
PRESIDENT, with respect to merchant vessels, went to declare that we
rested our cause on arms, which was not calculated to produce any good
effect in our favor. He hoped the amendment would not be agreed to; if
it was, he should vote against the resolution itself; and he did not
think the gentleman from New Jersey, when he read the Message of the
PRESIDENT, could think there was as much danger of a war with any other
country as with the French Republic.

Mr. BROOKS agreed with the gentleman who brought forward this
resolution, so far as it declares we are not prepared to resort to war.
He believed no nation or man who had common understanding could be fond
of war. The people of this country have yet the recollection of the
fatal effects of the late war. But there are two kinds of war,
offensive and defensive. He wished gentlemen to distinguish between
them; for though he was ready to declare against offensive war, and to
submit to small injuries rather than make defensive war; yet he was not
willing to say he should not be ready to defend his country against the
attack of any foreign power whatever. He hoped he should be believed in
this declaration, as he had formerly been employed in the defence of it;
and if gentlemen meant that though foreign nations attempt to invade our
territory, and to reduce us again to the colonies of a foreign power,
they would not repel them, he could not join them in opinion. And though
he should vote for the resolution as moved to be amended, he should feel
himself at perfect liberty to defend his country in case of attack. He
wondered the gentleman from Virginia should object to vote for the
resolution, because it was general, as it included the French Republic
as well as all other nations.

Mr. RUTLEDGE trusted the sentiments which the gentleman from New York
had expressed would govern the committee, and that all were ready to
say, that though we value the blessings of peace, yet we are ready to
resist insult and injury from whatever quarter they come. He hoped this
would be the conduct of this country; and notwithstanding much had been
heard about British parties and French parties, that all would unite in
this determination. This being his opinion, he should vote for the
amendment; and he hoped gentlemen would be satisfied with this
declaration, and that no more would be heard of a party in the House in
favor of war. Though he meant to vote for the resolution, he thought it
unnecessary; but in these days of jealousy and suspicion, if he were not
to vote for it, he should expect to be told he was in favor of war.

Gentlemen asked whether war is not approaching? And whether the
Executive is not hastening it? To the latter question he would answer in
the negative; with respect to the other, he could not answer, as it
depended on France, and so versatile and uncertain is every thing in
that country, that no dependence can be had upon it. Mr. R. said, at the
last session, when we had no intercourse with France, he thought it
necessary we should have it: that intercourse had proved ineffectual;
and though he sincerely wished for peace, yet he saw something in the
conduct of France which almost precluded hope.

The gentleman from Virginia had said, that this country had frequently
been stated as in a degraded state. He did not recollect to have made
the declaration, but this was his opinion. When our national rights had
been violated; when our commerce had been depredated; when the vessels
of belligerent powers, which had sought an asylum in our waters, had
been plundered and burnt, he thought it necessary to go into measures of
defence. He thought our frigates ought not to have remained at the
wharves; that our extensive sea-coast on which is much wealth, should
not be unprotected: he thought our seaports, the principal depots of our
revenue, ought to have been fortified. He joined his friends in their
attempts to have carried these measures, and, when they failed, he could
not help thinking his country was in a degraded state and that she had
lost the spirit which animated her in the year 1775. He hoped, however,
that now, when France had gone to the lengths which she has gone to,
that there would have been only one sentiment as to the propriety of the
measures formerly proposed. But though he thought the nation in a
degraded state, he was not in favor of war. He believed the citizens of
this country were not for it. He believed the Government was averse to
war; and that no part of it was more so than the Executive. War would be
a loss to this country; and to no individual more than the Executive. He
is no warrior, and, consequently, war has no laurels in store for him.

The gentleman from Virginia has spoken of war as having something
dazzling in perspective; something which flattered pride and ambition.
But did the gentleman suppose that a war with France could be flattering
to pride or ambition? It could not; it would be a war of prudence; we
must shut ourselves up, and act on the defensive, and say, "when reason
returns, when an ebb shall take place in the affairs of France, when her
flow of victories shall be over, she will do us justice." In the mean
time, we must defend ourselves. Mr. R. repeated, that he did not believe
any man in that House could wish for war; when he looked around him and
saw gentlemen whose wounds are yet sore from former service; when he saw
them voting for measures of defence, he could not believe, nor could any
believe, that they wished to plunge the country in war. It would sooner
be believed that gentlemen who made the charges were mistaken.

Mr. SEWALL was opposed to the proposition as it now stood, and hoped it
would be amended. What effect it would then have, he left those to judge
who introduced it. Mr. S. said, he and those who, on all questions of
defence, had voted with him, had been endeavoring for some time to go
into some measures of that kind, and to determine whether these measures
should be confined to our own limits or be extended to the ocean. These
measures ought now to be decided upon, as this is a moment in which our
commerce is depredated upon in a most unprecedented manner. We are now,
said he, called upon to consider the hazards of our situation. [Mr. S.
then quoted a part of the PRESIDENT'S Message, as to the situation of
our affairs in France, and as to the decree which was proposed
respecting the taking of English goods on board of neutral vessels, and
the carrying of which was declared to make neutral vessels good prizes.]
This last regulation, Mr. S. said, was a direct violation of the law of
nations, and amounted to a declaration of war on the part of France
against this country. But, instead of making any defence, gentlemen call
upon the committee to declare we are not disposed to resort to war
against the French Republic; so that, after we have been injured and
abused, and denied the common rights of humanity, we are not to
complain, but make a declaration that we will not go to war. Was then,
he asked, a question of war a card of politeness? Did a nation ever make
a declaration that it was not at war? It could not say so, except it
were in so degraded a state that it had no rights capable of injury. To
say we are not at war was to say no more than it is light when the sun
shines; but to call upon the committee to say so at this time, was to
degrade the nation from its independence, and below its character. The
present state of things, Mr. S. said, ought to be considered as a state
of war, not declared by us, but against us, by the French Republic; and
if we want spirit to defend ourselves, let us not say so. We may refrain
from acting, but let us not say we receive injuries with thankfulness.
But this proposition goes still further. In a moment of public danger,
it goes to divide and separate this House from the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES. The gentleman from Virginia had well explained this
resolution, when he said, it was intended to interrupt the views of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. That gentleman considered the Message of
the PRESIDENT as a declaration of war, and this resolution was to be in
contradiction to it. If this was the sense in which it was to be
understood, it was false in point of fact; for the PRESIDENT had neither
declared war nor called upon Congress to declare war; no such sentiment
could be found in the Message. To agree to the proposition as it stands,
would be to give countenance to the assertion of the French Government,
that we are a people divided from our Government; but, taking it with
the amendment, he looked upon it as a harmless thing. Mr. S. concluded,
by saying, that he considered the conduct of France in the light of war.
How far we would resent it, was the question; whether offensively or
defensively. He was in favor of defensive measures, as we are not equal
to offensive measures, (he wished to God we were.) It was our weakness,
and the division which had appeared in our councils, that had invited
these attacks. He trusted they should now unite and repel them.

Mr. GALLATIN said, before the speech of the gentleman who had just sat
down, he could not discover what was the meaning of the amendment, to
strike out the words "against the French Republic," as, when the House
were in a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union for
considering the late Message of the PRESIDENT, the resolution was
perfectly consonant. Besides, we have no danger to apprehend from any
other power, since our dispute is settled with Spain. The intention of
the amendment was evidently to render the resolution as unmeaning as
possible.

Every gentleman who had spoken on this subject, had agreed that war is
not a desirable object for the United States. He gave them credit for
the assertion. But this was not the question; but whether we are
prepared to resort to war under existing circumstances. It is a question
of fact. Mr. G. took notice of the different modes which had been
attempted to defeat the resolution; but, though the present amendment
were agreed to, he should still vote in favor of the resolution; for it
would be effectual, in some degree, as it could only apply to the French
nation, though it was not so expressed.

Mr. G. believed the United States had arrived at a crisis at which a
stand ought to be made, in which it was necessary for Congress to say
whether they will resort to war or preserve peace. He was led to this
conclusion from a review of the conduct of France, and of the late
Message of the PRESIDENT.

In respect to France, we know, that some time ago, she declared our
treaty with her to be at an end; though not in words, the result was to
deprive us of the advantages derived from that treaty. In the next
place, she dismissed our Minister Plenipotentiary. Under these
circumstances, the PRESIDENT called the extraordinary session of
Congress, and when met together, after having related the reasons which
induced this call, he concluded with saying, "that it was his sincere
desire to preserve peace and friendship with all nations, and believing
that neither the honor nor the interest of the United States absolutely
forbade the repetition of advances for securing these desirable objects,
he should not fail to promote and accelerate an accommodation," &c. The
PRESIDENT accordingly sent Envoys to France, and the result of the
embassy was given to Congress in the last Message, which was now under
consideration, in which he says, "the object of the mission cannot be
accomplished on terms compatible with the safety, honor, or the
essential interests of the nation." The people of the United States are
therefore informed, that negotiations are at an end, and that we cannot
obtain redress for wrongs, but may expect a continuation of captures, in
consequence of the decree which it was supposed was passed, for seizing
all neutral vessels with British property, manufactures, or produce, on
board. Mr. G. said, he differed in opinion from the gentleman last up,
that this was a declaration of war. He allowed it would be justifiable
ground of war for this country, and that, on this account, it was
necessary to agree to, or reject the present proposition, in order to
determine the ground intended to be taken. For, though there may be
justifiable cause for war, if it is not our interest to go to war, the
resolution will be agreed to.

There was another reason why this resolution ought to be now decided,
which arose from the conduct of our Executive. He has declared that a
change of circumstances has taken place which has occasioned him to
withdraw his order forbidding merchant vessels to arm; which amounts to
this, that he now permits vessels of the United States to use means of
defence against any attack which may be made upon them. Mr. G. thought
it necessary, therefore, to declare, whether we were to pursue measures
of war or peace. Before measures are taken which will lead to war, the
House ought to decide whether it is their intention at present to go to
war.

The gentleman from New York had spoken of the difference between
offensive and defensive war. This related to the motives, more than to
the manner, of carrying on war; because when war is once entered into,
though it may be at first defensive, it cannot remain so. It would be
ridiculous, for instance, to say, that our frigates should prevent our
vessels from being taken; but that they should not take French
privateers.

But it was said, if the resolution was agreed to, it would confirm the
opinion which had been held that Congress and the Executive were divided
in opinion. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. SEWALL) told the House
that the question was war or peace; that the conduct of France was a
declaration of war, yet as the PRESIDENT had not called upon Congress to
go to war, they ought not to declare that it is not expedient to resort
to war. But if it be assumed as a principle, which that gentleman
asserts, that the conduct of the French is a declaration of war, and the
PRESIDENT has told us we are in war, the resolution could not be
improper. Or if his other principle be assumed, that the information of
the PRESIDENT does not amount to war, then an agreement to the
resolution would show that Congress concurred with him in opinion, that
it is not proper at present to resort to war. So that in both cases, the
resolution is proper.

Mr. G. said he was precluded by the amendment from going into the merits
of the resolution. His arguments went to show the propriety of agreeing
to it in one way or other. Nor did he mean to take any notice of what
had been said about a division of opinion in our councils having invited
the insults and injuries which France had committed against this
country. If he were to do this, he must have recourse to recrimination,
which he did not wish. He wished rather to take a serious view of our
present situation, and either meet it by war, or by measures which shall
avoid war. On both sides are difficulties; but the difficulties and
inconveniences of both ought to be weighed, and the least taken; and,
having determined, measures ought to be pursued accordingly. He did not
wish to adopt the resolution as proposed to be amended, and then go on
and act directly contrary to it. He thought it best to meet the
resolution at once, and say whether we are determined on war or peace.
If we go to war, we must expect to meet all the expense and evils of
such a state; and if we remain at peace, we must, in a certain degree,
_submit_. He meant to say, that we must submit to have a number of our
vessels taken. But whether we shall have more taken in adopting one
course than the other, he left to gentlemen to determine. He thought the
submission he had mentioned, very different from the submission which
had been spoken of by the gentleman from South Carolina, and others.

Mr. G. concluded, by observing, that the conduct of France must tend to
destroy that influence which gentlemen had so often complained of as
existing in this country. Indeed, he was convinced that at the
commencement of her revolution there was a great enthusiasm amongst our
citizens in favor of her cause, which naturally arose from their having
been engaged in a similar contest; but he believed these feelings had
been greatly diminished by her late conduct towards this country. He
thought, therefore, that whether we engaged in war, or remained in a
state of peace, much need not be apprehended from the influence of
France in our councils. The business had come to a mere matter of
calculation, as to what course will be best to be taken for the interest
and happiness of the country. If he could separate defensive from
offensive war at sea, he should be in favor of it; but he could not make
the distinction, and therefore he should be in favor of pursuing
measures of peace.

Several persons rose, but, being about three o'clock, a motion was made
for the committee to rise, which was negatived--46 to 44.

Mr. DANA did not conceive that the construction of language given by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, was to be taken as true, without
examination. He trusted not. The gentleman stated the question to be
peace or war; he could not conceive it to be such. It was unfortunate
that, in this important crisis, the House should be engaged, like a set
of rhetoricians, in disputing the meaning of words. Indeed, the decision
on the present motion, he thought wholly unimportant.

The gentleman last up had said there was no distinction between
offensive and defensive war, and that he was, therefore, opposed to
either. Mr. D. thought the distinction clear; offensive war, is when an
attack is made upon another; and defensive, when a nation has recourse
to war, merely for self-defence. But there was another state of things
which could not have the name of war, which was to have recourse to
measures of defence; to be prepared in cases of attack. It was clear, by
the law of nations, that to prepare for defence, was not to commit
hostility. To say that to take measure of defence is hostility, was a
new definition, and it was the mighty discovery of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.

Did gentlemen mean that if we should make use of force against lawless
violence, it is war? If not, what did all that had been said amount to?
He thought the proposition perfectly nugatory.

But the gentleman said, that his friend from Massachusetts had said,
that France had already declared war against us, and that, therefore, we
must resort to war. For his part, he did not know what gentlemen meant
by resorting to war. If they had adopted terms which had any legal
meaning, he could have understood them, but the present might mean every
thing, or nothing. If it meant any thing, it meant taking active
measures against France in the first instance. He was not only ready to
say he would not consent to do this with respect to France, but with
respect to every other nation.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, and two gentlemen from Virginia, had
said that the Message of the PRESIDENT amounted to a declaration that we
were now in war. This idea he thought was stated very incorrectly. They
did not seem to have understood the meaning of the language of the
PRESIDENT. The state of things which existed at the time orders were
issued to prevent the arming of merchant vessels was essentially
different from the present; then there was an evident disposition in the
owners of vessels to cruise against a foreign belligerent nation, and
the order was issued to prevent attack and plunder; but the desire to
arm at present is for the purpose of defence merely, and not to cruise
or plunder. There is a law forbidding vessels to arm for the purpose of
cruising; but none forbidding merchants to arm in their own defence.
This was the fair construction, he believed, of the meaning of the
PRESIDENT.

Mr. OTIS observed, that the opposers of this amendment could assign no
better reason for declaring a desire to keep peace with the French
Republic, to the exclusion of other nations, than their own construction
of the PRESIDENT'S last Message, which they considered as directed
against that Republic only; but the House having resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, the resolution on the
table had no greater relation to that Message than to any former Speech
or Message, or to the affairs of the Union at large. If it was intended
as an answer to the Message, it should be moved in that form; but unless
it was in a particular manner connected with it, the public could not
connect it more naturally with this Message, than the Speech delivered
at the opening of the session. The House had been heretofore informed,
that France was not the only country with which a rupture was to be
apprehended. Spain might be considered, until lately, as having actually
invaded our territory; and though the presumption at present was, that
the causes of contention with that country were removed, yet they were
not officially informed of that fact, and without such information it
was not less proper to express their desire of maintaining peace with
Spain than with other countries. Again, gentlemen had often intimated
that a war with France would involve us in a war with the nations in
alliance with her. It was therefore inexpedient to show a contempt or
indifference for them, by leaving them out of our pacific manifesto.

He considered the Message in a different view from many gentlemen. But
admitting, for the sake of argument, that the PRESIDENT had declared an
opinion upon the facts stated by him, that war was inevitable; gentlemen
must consider the fact to be true; if they doubted it, they ought to
demand information. How would this resolution then stand? In reply to
assurances that negotiation had failed; that our Commissioners were
treated with neglect and contempt; that letters of marque and reprisal
were issued against our vessels; and that the most hostile appearances
were discernible on the part of France; it was proposed to declare, that
with them, and them only, it was inexpedient to resort to war. Such a
proposal would hardly be found in the annals of the most humble and
degraded nation.

He disapproved of the resolution, though he should vote for the
amendment, and would not, on the present occasion, follow gentlemen who
had gone at large into the merits of the resolution. Upon the extent of
the defensive measures proposed by gentlemen, his feelings inclined him
to enlarge; but this discussion would be more pertinent upon some other
question. He would merely hint, that actual invasion might not be the
worst calamity to this country. He could conceive of a partial invasion
of our territory that would be much less injurious, and attended with
much less loss than the total ruin of our commerce.

The call for the committee to rise being repeated,

Mr. N. SMITH hoped gentlemen would be satisfied to take the question,
which he thought very unimportant. The time consumed in discussing it
was, however, important, as other concerns called for attention. He knew
there were gentlemen who chose rather to address the people of the
United States than to legislate. He thought it better to legislate, than
to preach to the people. He looked upon the present resolution as a text
from which it was intended to alarm the people with respect to war, and
he wished not to indulge gentlemen in their design. He wished the
question to be taken for another reason. It was suggested by the
gentleman from Virginia, that the Message of the PRESIDENT was
considered by the people as a declaration of war, and that reports were
in circulation, that a treaty, offensive and defensive, was concluded
with Great Britain. After this, he would call the attention of the
committee to the resolution, which was, in effect, to say, we must
interfere, or war will be brought upon the country. Did not this go to
sanction a report which was as false and malignant as even jacobinism
could invent? It did; and he hoped, they would not so far sanction the
report, as to let the motion lie before them undecided.

Mr. DAYTON hoped the committee would rise. The gentleman last up began
with saying the proposition was of no importance; but, before he sat
down, showed that he thought differently. Mr. D. thought it was of
importance that the committee should come to a right decision upon it,
and say whether it ought to be agreed to in general terms, or rejected.

Mr. N. SMITH explained.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS thought the question trifling, and hoped a decision
would be had upon it.

Mr. GILES said, the question was a question of peace or war, and yet
gentlemen call it trifling. He did not mean to alarm the people of the
United States, but he wished them to understand their situation. He
acknowledged he was himself much alarmed. Gentlemen were willing to
engage in defensive, but not in offensive war; but when war was once
begun it would not be in the power of the United States to keep it
within the character of defensive war. Indeed the gentleman from
Massachusetts, when he spoke of defensive war, confessed our inability
for offensive war, and uttered a prayer to the Supreme Being that we
were able to engage offensively; and where, he asked, with such
sentiments, is the difference between offensive and defensive war? He
could see none; he deprecated war of every kind.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS hoped the question would be taken. As he before stated,
he thought it trifling, and the debate upon it only calculated to alarm
the people, which seemed to be the object of gentlemen. If the question
was not taken before they adjourned, much debate would be had, and much
time spent to very little purpose. He thought it very extraordinary, as
no one was found to bring forward a resolution to declare war, that a
gentleman would introduce a resolution of its being inexpedient so to
do. He was persuaded that this negative mode of proceeding was
calculated to draw on a debate, to set the people against the Executive.
Time, he said, was precious; they had sat near five months and done but
little, much remained to be done, and as all had declared their aversion
to a war, the people should be undeceived. He had himself seen gentlemen
write upon the late Message of the PRESIDENT, for the purpose of sending
to their constituents, "_A war message against France_."

Mr. MACON wished the gentleman would name who had thus written.

A call of order took place: and a motion was made for the committee to
rise, and carried.


WEDNESDAY, March 28.

_Relations with France._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, when the amendment to the first of Mr. SPRIGG'S
propositions, as to the inexpediency, under existing circumstances, of
resorting to war against the French Republic, being under
consideration; which amendment is to strike out the words "French
Republic,"

Mr. PINCKNEY rose and said, he was in favor of the amendment, because it
tended to make what he thought an improper proposition, in some degree,
nugatory; for he believed to agree to the resolution without it, would
be prejudicial to the interest and welfare of the country, as he did not
think the period had arrived which called for a decision on measures of
war or peace. If such a declaration had been necessary, he should have
expected it to come from gentlemen in favor of a war, declaring, that it
is expedient to go to war, as it was a very uncommon thing to declare we
will not do a thing. His strongest reason against coming to this
resolution, however, was, that at this period the House had not
sufficient information concerning the whole of this business, to enable
them to form a correct judgment upon it. The PRESIDENT told the House,
indeed, that he had little hope of a favorable termination of the
negotiation, but they knew nothing of the train of the negotiation, or
of the circumstances attending it. They knew that our Commissioners had
not been received; but they had not sufficient information as to the
manner in which they had been treated, to enable them to come to the
decision proposed.

The gentleman who proposed the resolution, said it was time to come
forward and declare whether we will have peace or war. Would to God,
said Mr. P., it was in our power, by any such declaration, to avert war,
or maintain peace; but he believed this did not depend upon any
declaration of ours. In questions of war there were always two parties,
one of whom was generally the aggressor, and the other generally
passive. In the present case, he considered this country as the passive
party, and, therefore, any declaration on our part would have little
effect. We know that individuals or nations induced to pursue measures
from interest or passion, are not easily diverted from their purpose. If
the French are actuated by either of these motives, no declaration of
ours will prevent the calamity. Such a proposition would rather
accelerate than prevent the evil. If our declarations could have
availed, they have not been wanting. From the first period of a
misunderstanding between the two countries, declarations have been made
deprecating war in general terms, but particularly with that nation. A
Minister Plenipotentiary had been sent to explain the views of this
Government, and to remove any jealousies which might exist, and to make
such specific propositions as were thought necessary; but our Minister
was rejected without a hearing. The next measure was, to send special
Commissioners, in order to settle our differences and avert the calamity
of war. We have, therefore, made sufficient declarations of our pacific
intentions. Indeed, he thought too much had been rested on these
declarations, as nothing had been done for our defence. When we looked
at our seaports, and saw their defenceless condition, he thought it
evident sufficient attention had not been paid to them, knowing that war
might, at least, be a possible event.

This resolution differed exceedingly from any thing which took place
when we had a misunderstanding with England in 1794. At that time, when
England issued her extraordinary Order of the 4th of November, and our
commerce was depredated upon, measures were spoken of for countervailing
the injuries which our citizens experienced, but no proposition like the
present was produced. We are now aggrieved and injured in a most
extraordinary manner, but we say we will not go to war. On a former
occasion he had heard of a variety of restrictive regulations, proposed
with a view of restraining the injuries committed upon us, and to bring
Great Britain to reason; and he did expect something similar would have
been proposed on the present occasion, but nothing of the kind had
appeared. It was true we had not so great hold of the French nation as
of the British, in this respect, but we had some; and he believed
measures might be taken which would induce the nation to hear reason.
But, instead of this, it was proposed that we should say, we have been
injured and aggrieved; but we will not oppose you, we will not go to war
with you.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) had gone further than
perhaps the resolution on the table would warrant. He says, the adoption
of this resolution will go to prevent the taking of any measures which
may, in their tendency, lead to war. If gentlemen meant by this, that it
was to prevent any measures being taken for the protection of our
commerce, the adoption of the resolution would not only declare that we
will not go to war, but that we will not take any measures for the
defence of our property. It appeared to him that that gentleman had
himself given the best reasons for modifying this resolution, so as to
make it as little mischievous as possible. For he had told the committee
that France had set at naught her treaty with us; but though they have
done this, said Mr. P., they have endeavored to justify their
depredations, by insisting that, according to that treaty, it was
necessary for vessels to carry a _rôle d'equipage_. Mr. P. added, there
was another Order of the French Government which was so contrary to
right, so cruel in its consequences, so degrading to this country, and
so inhuman in its tendency, that he could not avoid noticing it. It was
the decree which declares that every American citizen found on board the
privateer of an enemy, shall be considered and treated as a pirate. They
pretended to found this Order on our treaty with Great Britain; but he
wished gentlemen who thought it justifiable, to turn to that treaty, and
see whether there was any thing there which countenanced so violent a
measure. But this is not all, the gentleman from Pennsylvania allowed
that a decree had lately been passed which violates all the laws of
neutral nations, viz; that if the property, manufactures, or produce,
of an enemy be found on board a neutral vessel, it shall be good prize.
Our Ministers, also, who were commissioned to conciliate, and even to
make concessions, though they had been in Paris three months, cap in
hand, had not been able to get a hearing. Under all these grievances,
what, said he, are we called upon to do? He should not have been
surprised if some one, fired with the injuries we have received, had
brought forward a proposition for war. But, instead of this, smarting as
we are under injuries, our commerce bleeding at every pore, and our
country deeply humiliated, we are called upon to say: You have done
every thing to injure, insult, and degrade us, but we have deserved it:
we will do nothing to oppose you. Though God and nature have given us
power, we will not go to war with you, neither on the present occasion,
nor on any other, whatever injury you may commit upon us.

However humiliating our conduct might be, he repeated, it would have no
effect upon that nation. He did not wish to animadvert upon the conduct
of any country; but there was one instance of the treatment which the
French Republic has exhibited to an independent State, which he could
not help noticing. It was in respect to Venice, which would show, that
no humiliation, no concession, would avert the calamity which threatens
us, if the rulers of the country are determined upon war. If he was not
misinformed, the circumstances of the case were as follows: The
Venetians were at peace, and endeavoring to pursue a line of neutrality.
A tumult arose in one of their towns, and the populace did, in a
barbarous and most unjustifiable manner, massacre a number of French
soldiers. This was an injury which called for and deserved atonement. A
retaliation took place fully commensurate with the crime. The Venetians
made every concession in their power. But the French commander was not
satisfied; he took vengeance upon them by overturning their
Government--a Government which had stood the test of five hundred years.
He should have supposed that the French would now have been satisfied;
but the matter did not stop here. The Government being overturned, the
people were promised a free Government, and an amelioration of their
condition. They were proceeding in the establishment of a Government;
but, when the treaty came to be made between the French Republic and the
Emperor, he supposed it was thought to be for the interest of that
Republic to sacrifice a part of this territory, and to give it up to the
Emperor, to take a part to themselves, and to annex another part to the
Cisalpine Republic. This was done; and he believed the very part which
had committed the offence against the French Government, had been
rewarded by being joined to a free Government.

This division of the Venetian territory was not the work of a young
officer, elated by victory and conquest, or enraged by the treatment
which his soldiers had received. The French Directory had come forward,
and, by their decree, had applauded the whole conduct of their General
in the most unqualified terms, particularly as to Venice and Genoa. He
would not take up the time of the committee by citing the conduct of the
French towards the latter Republic. The case of Venice was sufficient to
show how little was to be expected from a humiliating conduct.

Mr. GILES thought the gentleman who had just sat down had been less
correct in his statements than he usually was. He would allude
particularly to one instance. That gentleman says, whatever aggressions
and insults may be heaped upon us, the supporters of the resolution will
not go to war. The proposition held a directly contrary language. It
says: "That, under present circumstances, the United States deem it
advisable to remain in a state of peace." [Mr. PINCKNEY said the reason
why he had made this remark was, that yesterday the gentleman himself
had said, he should not be for going to war, unless the country was
invaded. He, therefore, connected the resolution and this declaration
together.] Mr. G. said, he still repeated the same thing; that we ought
not to resort to war beyond the limits of the United States. But he drew
a contrary inference from this, from that which that gentleman had
drawn, because he had accompanied the declaration with another, that he
was perfectly ready to prepare to that extent for defence. He would
explain the grounds of this opinion. Within our own limits we are
capable of making something like exertion, and there, he believed,
exertions might be made to advantage. Indeed, one of the propositions,
which is connected with the present, goes to this purpose, and therefore
with what propriety could the gentleman say, he and those who were of
his opinion were not for preparing for defence till the enemy is at the
door? Nor could he see any thing like humiliation in this. Nay, he was
convinced, if we carried our preparations for defence beyond our own
limits, instead of gaining glory or honor, we shall meet with nothing
but disgrace, as we are not prepared to make a defence at sea. Indeed,
the moment we get beyond our jurisdictional line, defence will become
offence, because there will be no evidence by which it can be
ascertained by whom the attack commenced. It would, therefore, be unwise
to permit ourselves to be placed in this situation. If any object was to
be effected by going out to sea, it must be the protection of our
commerce with Great Britain; but it was known that the two acts of the
British Parliament which took place in January last, if peace continues,
may take that trade in a great measure from us. He did not think,
therefore, that this was a sufficient object for which to incur so much
risk.

At present, said Mr. G. there is a pretty general opinion in the country
(and he thought there was much ground for the opinion) that there is a
disposition in a part of this House, and in part of the Government, for
war; and he thought it was proper to come to a declaration upon the
subject. This would not only have a good effect upon our own citizens,
but it would convince European powers, that though we were preparing for
defence, we were not preparing for war.

Mr. G. said, he was not satisfied with the construction which the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. DANA) had given to that part of the
Message which speaks of our situation being changed. He did not believe
the PRESIDENT had any reference to the dispositions of the people, but
to the state of things generally.

The apprehension of war had already begun to produce disagreeable
effects in his part of the country. He had received information that
produce had fallen in price, and that the sale was very dull. He was of
opinion, therefore, that the proposed declaration, if agreed to, would
appease the minds of the people. It was said it would have no good
effect upon the Executive Directory. He did not know that it would. But
it could have no bad effect; and it might have a good one, for he did
not think that body quite so abandoned as some gentlemen thought them.

The gentleman last up had spoken of the partition of Venice. He himself
saw it with concern; but where was the difference in crime between the
French Republic and the Emperor? Each took a part. But what was all this
to the United States? Were they to go to war to avenge this partition?
We heard nothing of this kind some years ago, when a partition of Poland
took place. For his own part, he wished to leave the powers of Europe to
themselves, and to draw ourselves within our own boundary, where we
should be fully equal to our defence against any power on earth.

Mr. HARPER.--When this resolution was first proposed, it appeared to him
to be one of those nugatory measures which might either be agreed to or
rejected, without producing any effect; and, until he saw the resistance
which was given to the amendment, he remained of the same opinion; but
now he found it was to say to the French nation, "you may commit against
us injury after injury, and insult after insult, we never will resist
you."

If this were not the intention, why resist the amendment? Taking this to
be the intention, he should bestow some observations upon it. Gentlemen
preached about peace. They cry, "peace, peace," as if we, holding the
scale of the world, had the power to preserve it. Do not gentlemen know
that peace or war is not in our power? They do know it, and that all in
our power is to resist, or submit. Was not the clamor which was heard
about peace, in so many words, saying, you must submit, not only to what
injuries you have received, but to what you may hereafter receive? Was
not every advance, on our part, for an adjustment of differences, met
with new injuries and new insults? It would not be denied. If peace was
all that gentlemen wanted, they would take the resolution in general
terms, as proposed to be amended; but their opposing it shows that they
have no objection to hostility, if it be not against the French
nation--he would not say whose servants they were desirous of being, but
against those whom they dread they are afraid to lift up their finger.
And this was the spirit of peace which they wished to preserve--a spirit
which he deemed vile submission--a spirit which was afraid to complain,
and which met every new insult without murmur.

Mr. H. rejoiced that this amendment was made, because it had unmasked
the intentions of the mover and supporters of the original proposition.
They were now obliged to avow, it is not peace with all the world which
we want, but peace with France--a servile and abject submission to one
nation; a nation in behalf of whom they have heretofore been eager of
war; for, notwithstanding all their cries at present for peace, peace,
when there is no peace, they have on a former occasion been equally
zealous for war. All their efforts were then used to involve this
country in war, upon the side of the French Republic; but now, when
measures of resistance are called for--not against France, but to
prevent her from wounding her enemy through our sides--their cry is
turned from war to peace. This he repeated, and, if they denied it, he
would refer to written accounts of their discourses at that time, which
would prove that they had sought war against England, and an alliance,
offensive and defensive, with the French Republic. At that time, he and
those who generally vote with him, desired peace; and it required all
their skill and firmness to preserve it, and much obloquy was thrown
upon them on account of their exertions. The ground which he and his
friends then took was--let us first try negotiation; if that fail, we
will then join you in the war. But these gentlemen were, at that time,
all in favor of war measures in the first instance. Whence now this
change of spirit? What has become of the spirit of 1794, when it was
said to be disgraceful to negotiate, and that it would be base to
surrender the independence of our country to a foreign power? He wished
he could see the breasts of gentlemen now glow with the patriotism which
then animated them; but, instead of this, what do we see? A spirit of
the most abject kind; a spirit that would leave all our property
unprotected beyond the limits of our territory, so that our commerce,
from which is derived five-sixths of our revenue, is to be abandoned,
lest, in defending it, we should give offence to the French Republic.

The committee were now told it would be time enough to prepare for war
when an invasion of our country was attempted. And why were they told
this? Because such an event is not likely to take place. Gentlemen know
that all the hostility which France wished to commit against this
country may be done by destroying our commerce. But they are disposed to
surrender this part of our rights, rather than resist; and what
security had we that, if the country were invaded, these gentlemen would
then resist? He apprehended that the same spirit which led them now to
submit, would continue to actuate them.

Last year gentlemen were opposed to doing any thing which should alter
the state of things. If this negotiation, said they, fail, we will then
join you in active measures. But now, when that time is come, they tell
us we must still sink lower, and become more degraded. We are to be
contented, not only to see our ships captured, our property destroyed,
our sailors led in chains, our revenue annihilated, but we must see the
army of the enemy attempt to land, before we will resist.

Mr. H. said he would bring his proofs, to show that those gentlemen who
are now so loud in their calls for peace, were heretofore the supporters
of a war system. For this purpose, he adduced Mr. Monroe's view of the
conduct of the Executive of the United States, which, he said, was a
publication which had met with the most unbounded and enthusiastic
applauses from all the party; and he read from it an extract of a letter
from Mr. Monroe to our Secretary of State, dated Paris, September 10,
1796, pages 209 and 210 of the book, in which he states it to be his
opinion, "that if a suitable attempt be made to engage the aid of the
French Government in support of our claims upon England, it may be
accomplished; and that to secure success, it will be necessary to take
the posts and invade Canada."

Would any man, said Mr. H., who shall read this passage, say that the
system of these gentlemen is a peace system? And besides this
proposition for taking the posts and invading Canada, the same gentleman
proposes an advance to France of five millions of dollars. Yet these are
the gentlemen who now are willing to say to France, "We will not fight
you; we give you license to do us all the injury you please. You may fit
out half a dozen frigates, which will be able to block up our ports; and
we give you this notice that you may effect your purpose with little
expense, and not prepare a large fleet for the purpose."

The gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES,) whose zeal for keeping this
country in an absolutely defenceless state, has surpassed all the zeal
he ever before displayed, except that which he had shown on a former
occasion for bringing us into war, has told us that peace is the best
thing we can have; and that it would be knight-errantry to attempt to
defend our property at sea. After our Ministers have been sent off, and
a decree passed which must destroy our commerce, and which had been
already allowed to be just cause of war, this was the language of that
gentleman on the present occasion. To show this gentleman's consistency,
and because his language was at that time so spirited, so American, and
carried with it so much force and energy, he could not forbear reading
an extract from his speech on the 28th of March, 1794, upon Mr.
DAYTON'S motion to sequestrate British debts. The question was not then
whether we should arm for our defence, but whether we should make an
attempt at negotiation. The arguments of the gentleman were, it is true,
somewhat misplaced, though they were nevertheless patriotic and
admirable; and he could not account for the strange contrast of his
present sentiments on any other ground than that he believed the true
interest of this country was only to be effected by a treaty of alliance
with France and war with her enemy. Gentlemen who were on a former
occasion in favor of spirited measures in defence of our rights, and
were on this occasion the same, are consistent; though their arguments
might not altogether be properly timed, yet they were radically right.

Mr. H. said, he would bring another example to the view of the
committee. He meant that of Switzerland. Attempt after attempt had been
made by France on the independence of that country. After going a
variety of lengths, they effected their purpose of driving from thence
that unfortunate class of men, the emigrants, who had been persecuted by
those who had usurped all authority in France, and who sought the rights
of hospitality amongst them. New aggressions were made; they took
possession of a part of the Swiss territory, and displaced their
magistrates. Seeing that every submission invited fresh insult, they
united, hand in hand, took up arms, and reinstated the magistrates who
had been displaced, and resolved to live free or die. What was the
consequence of this spirited conduct? The French withdrew from their
territory, disavowed the measures of their General, and declared that
they desired nothing more than to leave the Swiss in full possession of
their rights.

Let us, said Mr. H., take warning by this energetic example of the
Swiss. Let us now begin to resist. Let us declare that we wish to
preserve peace with all the world; that we allow that peace is good, but
that we believe independence is better; that peace is desirable, but not
at any price--and then France will relinquish her aggressions.

At this point the committee rose and had leave to sit again.


THURSDAY, March 29.

_Relations with France._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, and the amendment to the first resolution moved by
Mr. SPRIGG, as to the inexpediency, under existing circumstances, of
resorting to war against the French Republic, which amendment is, to
strike out the words "French Republic," being under consideration,

Mr. GILES rose. It would be recollected, he said, that yesterday an
attack had been made upon him, as indecent in its manner as it was in
itself novel and unprecedented. He had been eight years in Congress, but
he never before heard so direct and personal an attack. He was pleased,
however, that it had been made, and only regretted that his state of
health was such as, he feared, would not suffer him to go so fully into
a refutation of the charges which had been brought against him as he
could wish. He should, however, state such circumstances as would not
only disprove the facts alleged against him, but also prove that the
reverse of them was true. In doing which, he begged to be corrected if
he should misstate any thing.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) had said "that it had
been the object of himself and his associates, but particularly of
himself, since the year 1794, to go to war with Great Britain, if
possible, and to enter into a treaty of alliance, offensive and
defensive, with France." This charge he declared to be entirely void of
truth. He knew that slanders of this kind had been circulated in an
artful manner through the United States from that time to the present,
but he never before heard the charge publicly made. Being made, he would
refute it, though it had been the foundation of two long speeches of
that gentleman; for, whenever slander assumes an erect front, it is
dissipated by the first ray of truth which meets it.

He trusted he should prove, by a reference to the debate which had
already been quoted, and to others, that he had never been in favor of a
war with Great Britain; and as to an alliance, offensive and defensive,
with France, he never heard such a proposition in private conversation,
and it will be allowed that no such proposition was ever publicly made.

The inconsistency of his conduct had been spoken of. The gentleman from
South Carolina said it was unaccountable to him how the author of such
animated sentiments as were delivered by him, (Mr. G.,) in 1794, could
now utter sentiments so grovelling and pitiful as those heard from him.
He wished the gentleman had selected the passages to which he alluded,
as he himself was unconscious of any difference between those which he
then delivered and his present sentiments. From the year 1794 to the
present period, he had uniformly declared it to be his opinion "that war
is justifiable only in case of self-defence."

If boldness of assertion and dogmatism of expression would have availed,
the gentleman from South Carolina must have been victorious; but he
would beg to turn the attention of the committee to facts. That
gentleman had first introduced the book of Mr. Monroe, the sentiments of
which, he said, certain gentlemen, by their approbation of it, had
adopted as their own. Mr. G. said he had read the book, and had found a
great deal to commend in it, and little to condemn. Human nature was
liable to err. If the gentleman himself were to review his own political
history, he doubted whether it would be found to be always consistent.
There might have been errors in Mr. Monroe's Ministry, but he believed
they would be found to be as few as ever attended a negotiation which
was encompassed with so many difficulties.

What, he asked, was the letter which the gentleman read from his book?
It was a letter dated December 5, 1794. This was not a letter from Mr.
Monroe to his associates, but to the Secretary of State; and, if any
conspiracy was intended, General Washington and his Secretaries must
have been the conspirators. He saw nothing more in this letter than a
suggestion of what might be done if the Government thought proper. Mr.
G. stated the situation of things at that time. In the autumn of 1794
the PRESIDENT laid before Congress a communication stating that nothing
further could be done between this country and Great Britain by way of
negotiation, and what remained to be done was left to Congress. There
never was so threatening a state of affairs between Great Britain and
this country, since the revolution, as at that period. At the time,
therefore, when Mr. Monroe wrote the letter in question, he could not
possibly know the state of affairs here, or whether they would come to
an amicable settlement, and it was right in him, and it would have been
criminal not to have done it, to state what it was likely might be done
by France in our favor in case of extremities. He would only add one
further remark, as he should have occasion to defend himself more than
Mr. Monroe, which was, that he was at least as honorable a character as
any of his calumniators; that while he was in France he effected much
good, and that since he came away we had experienced much injury. If
gentlemen would examine the state of things when he first went to
France, what our situation was when he came away, and what it is now, he
thought this would appear evident.

The gentleman from South Carolina, doubtless, after examining all the
remarks he could find of his, had brought forward a debate which took
place in 1794. To follow the gentleman would be a disagreeable task; but
as it would serve to elucidate a truth which it was necessary to unfold,
he should undertake it, and show that, instead of these remarks being in
favor of war, they were founded in the most zealous wish for peace, Mr.
G. proceeded to read his remarks on Mr. DAYTON'S motion for a
sequestration of British debts, which, as the mover would recollect, he
said, was a mere arrestation of British debts, which was proposed as a
preventive of war, by holding in our hands what was within our power, as
a pledge for the good behavior of that country, in order to preserve
peace. Mr. G. stated the situation of things to be different from that
which Mr. HARPER had represented it to be, as the Legislature had no
knowledge of any negotiation being set on foot with Great Britain at
that time. This debate took place on the 28th of March, when they had
been informed by the PRESIDENT that nothing further could be done by
him, and the negotiation was not heard from until the 19th of April
following. A part of the system proposed was an embargo, and another a
suspension of intercourse with Great Britain. This bill passed this
House, but was negatived in the Senate, by the casting vote of the VICE
PRESIDENT who is now the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; and if this
bill had been carried into a law, the other regulation for arresting the
British debts would evidently have been a proper measure.

Mr. G. did not believe that we stood upon such unequivocal ground with
respect to France as we formerly stood upon with respect to Great
Britain. This had long been his opinion; and though we have heavy
complaints to make against France, they were not without just complaints
against us, arising principally from the operation of the British
Treaty, that fatal instrument to the United States.

Mr. G. read some of the articles of the treaty, and his former remarks
thereon, and denied that there was any well-founded apprehension of war
at the time it was under discussion. He also noticed the assertion which
had frequently been made, of the French Directory receiving lessons from
this country, which, he said, was too absurd to be believed.

Though he thought France had just ground of complaint against this
country, he did not mean to justify her conduct towards us. He thought
she ought to have received our Ministers; and, if they had not agreed,
to have taken such measures as they thought proper. But this is
supposing our Ministers clothed with sufficient powers; if they were
not, there would be some ground of justification for their conduct. The
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is in the possession of information which
would satisfy the Congress and the people in this respect, but he has
thought proper to withhold it, and therefore he alone is responsible.
There was one circumstance, he said, very unaccountable in this
business. The PRESIDENT informed the House that he had received certain
papers, and says, "I have considered these papers; I have deliberated
upon them; I have not sent them to you, but require you to act upon
them; I call upon you to take energetic measures, and request you will
provide sufficient revenue." The House has been thus obliged to take up
the subject in the dark. Is this, said he, a desirable state for the
Legislature to be placed in? Is it not rather a degraded state? He
thought it was; and when party rage shall subside, and it shall be seen
that the Executive is pursuing hostile measures, and keeping back all
information from Congress, this conduct would be deemed extraordinary.
He was far from saying the Executive had not done what was proper. He
could not say so, because he had seen no evidence upon which to form a
judgment; but it left a strong impression on his mind that something was
not correct, which was the reason the expected papers were not sent.

He also again referred to what the PRESIDENT says in his late Message
with respect to the change of circumstances, which he still thinks he
meant to apply to a change from neutrality in the country to something
like war. And in these circumstances, said he, are the people of the
United States to be led on from step to step, until they are
irrevocably involved in war? And are the people to be told that this is
a trifling question? When all the country is in commotion, and when the
people are preparing their petitions for peace, (which he thought very
proper,) he was not willing to proceed until the present question was
decided.

He would suggest another idea. He had heard a variety of observations
from different quarters, that at a period not very far distant from the
present, a more intimate connection between this country and Great
Britain than at present exists, is likely to take place. And yet
gentlemen are perpetually crying, What! give up your independence! Do
you prefer peace to independence? He would answer, No; for independence
he should be ready at all times to make war. But are we, said he, called
upon to fight for speculative independence, and, at the same time,
willing to commit our real independence to the mercy of another nation?
Where, he asked, is the difference between depending upon the French or
British nation? Except, indeed, (as he believed was the speculative
opinion of some gentlemen,) there was an intention of assimilating the
British and American Governments.

Gentlemen talked of newspapers. He would say a word on that subject.
There are two papers, said he, printed in this city, which not only
breathe defensive, but offensive war of the worst kind. One of these
papers, he believed, was particularly countenanced by the Government;
the other was printed by an infamous scoundrel, a British subject--a
paper which he was sorry to find too much countenanced. This paper not
only breathes war, but exterminating war. And this paper issued from a
British press, spreads its baneful sentiments throughout the country. He
proclaimed this fact; and he should think himself a traitor to his
country, not to proclaim it.

Mr. G. would say a few words as to the effect which the late French
decree would be likely to produce upon this country. The committee had
been told, by the gentleman from South Carolina, that it would
effectually destroy our revenue. He believed he was mistaken in this. To
France and to those nations who may be supposed to be under her
influence, we last year exported to the amount of $36,000,000, and to
Great Britain $8,000,000; two-thirds of which are re-exported to the
countries above mentioned.

Against whom, then, are we to arm? Against those who receive
$36,000,000, for the protection of the $8,000,000, two-thirds of which
are re-exported. How, he asked, would this operate? Would the decree
stop the importation of British goods? No, it might lessen them, but
would not stop them, as the British would become, in some measure, their
own carriers; and, as their vessels paid a higher duty in our ports than
our own, it is probable our revenue would not be greatly lessened. It
was possible, however, that there might be some abuse of the decree in
carrying it into execution.

He was as much opposed to the decree of the Executive Directory as any
man, but not so much on account of any loss we shall sustain from it, as
from its being an attack upon our neutral rights, which he preferred to
money. The British Treaty had authorized two acts that took place in
January last, which will transfer the carrying trade from American to
British vessels; but those acts will not affect our vessels going to
France, Spain, or Holland. He supposed, therefore, that our commerce
would not be very materially injured by the French Decree. He did not
know but it would even be upon a better footing than at present, as
there would be more security for it. At any rate, no rash measures ought
to be taken, until we see how the decree is to be executed.

He trusted the gentleman from South Carolina was, by this time, pretty
well satisfied as to the inaccuracy of his statement. Before gentlemen
make charges of inconsistency against others, they should be sure that
they themselves stand firm in that respect. That gentleman ought to have
looked back upon his own conduct in 1792 and 1793. He had been informed
that that gentleman was at that time a member of an affiliated society
of Jacobins. [Mr. HARPER said it was not true.] He believed, however,
all the gentlemen who knew him at that time would do him the credit to
say, that he was one of the most eloquent declaimers of that day in
favor of the rights of man. But his inconsistency had even appeared
within these two days. When the present proposition was first laid on
the table, he rejoiced that there was a prospect of all uniting in
manifesting a disposition for peace; but the next day he used arguments
which went to the destruction of the resolution.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Gen. SHEPARD) had made a remark which
he must notice; it was, that he assumed to dictate to others what was
proper to be done. Of this he was not justly chargeable. That gentleman
told the committee he was a warrior; he venerated him as such--he was a
warrior in a glorious cause; but whilst he venerated him as a soldier,
he had to regret the political prejudices under which he labored, which
could suffer him to attribute a motive of that kind to him. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. BROOKS) had also told the committee he had
also been in service in the Revolution. This he did not know before he
heard it from the gentleman himself. But he had since been told he was
engaged in the honorable and humane employment of clothier to the army.
[Mr. BROOKS said, he had the honor of taking up arms in the defence of
his country, which he carried until he was taken prisoner. He was a
prisoner eighteen months, and when he was set at liberty he found his
vacancy was not preserved for him. He then served his country in a
different line, and he believed in a manner which entitled him to at
least as much merit as he had assumed. He believed that providing the
army with clothing was an essential part of the service; but, (said he,
with great warmth,) if the gentleman doubts my being a soldier, I am
here to answer him. A loud cry of order, and Mr. B. sat down.]

Mr. G. said, he had received this information from one of the
gentleman's friends. He made the inquiry, because he did not know what
services he had performed; and he assured him the information which he
had received had tended to raise, rather than to sink him in his
estimation; but he was not alarmed at being told he was a soldier.

It had been said of the resolution before the committee, that by stating
we are not ready to resort to war against the French Republic, that it
might be implied we are ready to go to war with some other nation. That
this idea might be done away, if gentlemen will permit the words
"against the French Republic" to remain. If the mover would give his
consent, he should have no objection to add the words, "or any other
nation."

Mr. HARPER hoped, as he had been particularly alluded to by the
gentleman who had just sat down, he should not be considered as
trespassing on the patience of the committee in an unreasonable manner,
if he made a few remarks in reply, though he did not mean to do it
generally, as he perceived others had undertaken to do that, whom he was
conscious were better able to do it than himself. He was called up
merely by the gentleman's personal observations.

In the first place, he was charged with great indecency in bringing
forward and commenting upon the gentleman's own speech. He left it to
the committee to determine with what propriety this complaint came from
a person who has omitted no opportunity of attributing the worst of
motives, not only to gentlemen in that House, but to others out of it;
neither age, character, nor absence, have preserved gentlemen from his
censure; from a person who has always indulged himself in the most
violent philippics against the Executive of the United States, and all
who concurred in his measures; from a person who, when gentlemen declare
they are for peace, says he does not believe them; from a person who has
continually charged all those with inconsistency who differed in opinion
from him, not by examining their conduct, but by making insinuations
against them as to their debts, or to the way in which they may have
acquired money, or by following them to their youth, before they became
members of this House? He thought the gentleman ought to attend to the
old, but just adage, "He who lives in a glass house ought not to be the
first to throw stones." If there could be a man more regardless than
that gentleman of all the rules of decorum in debate, he had never heard
him.

As to the charge of inconsistency in his conduct, it had often been made
in private, and as often contradicted; but as it is now brought into
public view, he would say a few words on that point.

It was said, that in 1791 and 1792, he was a member of a Jacobin
society, and a warm declaimer in favor of the rights of man. What was
said respecting his being a member of a Jacobin society, is one of those
falsehoods of party, which, though known to be unfounded, is still
reported.

The fact, Mr. H. said, was this, which he never concealed: In the year
1791, there were instituted in Charleston a variety of clubs, (there
were several before that time;) of many of these, being a young
practitioner of the law, and desirous of extending his acquaintance; and
procuring business, he was a member. Among these was a society called a
Patriotic Society. It was composed of French and American citizens; and
he and seven or eight other young practitioners became members, and
attended one or two evenings; but, finding it composed of persons from
whose society much improvement could not be expected, they never went
afterwards; and so anti-jacobinic was their conduct considered, that
they merited and received an expulsion from the society.

As to being a declaimer in favor of the rights of man in 1791 and 1792,
he owned he partook of that enthusiasm which at that time raged in
America, because he was deceived. He then believed the French had been
unjustifiably attacked, but he now found that they were the first
assailants. He then believed that the treaties of Pilnitz[30] and Pavia,
of which they had heard so much, were realities; but he now found them
contemptible forgeries. With respect to other parts of the French
Revolution, he then believed that the principal actors in it were
virtuous patriots, but he had since discovered that they were a set of
worthless scoundrels and mad-headed enthusiasts, who, in endeavoring to
reduce their fallacious schemes to practice, have introduced more
calamities into the world, than ages of good government will be able to
cure.

Mr. H. said, he never was a declaimer in favor of what gentlemen meant
by the rights of man. He held them and their author in merited contempt.
The pretended factitious rights of man to which gentlemen referred, were
the rights of a few noisy demagogues over the rights of the people.
Though he always believed this, he did not know it so well, in 1791 and
1792, as he knew it in 1794, and since. And, therefore, he was not a
declaimer in favor of what the gentlemen mean by the rights of man, but
he was a warm admirer of the French Revolution, when he thought the
object was the establishment of the true rights of man; but, since he
discovered that this was neither the object nor would it be the effect,
instead of viewing that Revolution as a blessing to the world, which he
once thought it, he now viewed it as the greatest curse that ever
afflicted mankind; as a phial of wrath from Heaven, the bitterest that
ever was poured out upon the earth.

There was a certain species of the rights of man of which he had always
been the defender, in favor of which his voice would always be heard. He
had, in a well-known instance, advocated the rights of his
fellow-citizens in the best manner he was able, and in a manner which
had obtained for him their thanks and their remembrance. How he
conducted that defence, was well known to some of his colleagues in that
House.

Mr. H. denied that he had been inconsistent with respect to the
proposition before the committee. He then noticed what had fallen from
Mr. GILES with respect to the decree of the French Directory not being
so inimical to this country as it had been supposed to be. Mr. H.
charged Mr. G. with being much mistaken in supposing that only the
amount of eight millions of dollars was exported to Great Britain and
her dominions, or that thirty-six millions of dollars were exported to
France, and to countries connected with her. Out of the fifty-one
millions exported from this country during last year, it appeared by the
statement before them that eight millions five hundred thousand were
sent to Great Britain; nine millions to the Hanse towns; to France and
her dominions eleven millions. But, he asked if the gentleman from
Virginia knew the reason why this amount to France appeared so large? If
not, he would tell him. All the produce shipped for the British West
Indies in 1797, was almost constantly cleared out for French ports, in
order to avoid the effects of the plundering decrees of the French West
Indies, and this was the reason why six or seven millions appeared under
this head, which ought to appear under another. But the gentleman seemed
to suppose that all which did not go to Great Britain went to France,
and countries connected with her. At least twenty millions, out of
fifty-one millions, went to countries over whom France had no power;
and, when to these were added what was sent to Great Britain, and six or
seven millions were deducted on the ground he had mentioned, the
gentleman would find the balance was not very considerable.

Mr. H. said he should not notice what the gentleman had chosen to say
respecting the British Minister, except as to the improper manner in
which he had called a confidential person a confidential agent of the
Minister, and to say that he could not see any analogy between this case
and that of the French Minister, who fitted out privateers and levied
troops in our country without permission from the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.

The gentleman from Virginia had entered fully, not only into a
justification of himself, but of his friends. How far he has acquitted
himself and them from the weighty charges which he had exhibited, he was
not the proper person to judge; he left the public to determine. He
must, however, beg leave to correct him in one of his facts. He informed
the committee that the letter of Mr. Monroe, which had been quoted, was
written in December, 1794, whereas it was dated Paris, September 10,
1795, long after that Minister had been officially informed by our
Minister in London, that the British Treaty was concluded and signed;
yet this letter recommends the taking of the posts, the invasion of
Canada, and the cutting up of the British commerce by privateers. He did
not say that this letter was a proof of conspiracy, but of a system of
policy which was very contrary to a peace system.

But the gentleman says, he (Mr. G.) never proposed war against Great
Britain. He knew it. The gentleman always spoke of peace, but pursued
measures which led to war. He did not speak of war when he recommended
sequestrations, confiscations, &c., because he loved peace. He did not
talk of war; but, whilst he and his friends opposed measures of defence,
they were in favor of every measure which led to war. While they were
irritating a nation to war, they opposed the building of the frigates.
He could not say what were the views of gentlemen in doing this, but he
would say what appearance it had on his mind, when he was far removed
from the seat of Government. He thought it seemed as if gentlemen
believed it would be well to get to war, and then rely upon their
favorite nation for support.

Mr. BROOKS again complained of the insinuation which Mr. GILES had
thrown out against him, which he said was not called for by any
circumstances under consideration.

Mr. GILES assured him he mentioned the fact alluded to, out of no
disrespect to him. With respect to the date of Mr. Monroe's letter, he
had been deceived by a leaf being folded down at the letter, the date of
which he had mentioned. The gentleman had said that he had attributed
improper motives to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. This he denied.
He had said, he took measures which he did not approve, and he hoped a
difference of opinion from any man would not be imputed to him as a
crime. With respect to the explanation which the gentleman had given of
his own conduct, he was glad to hear it. It was to obtain this
explanation, that he mentioned the reports which he had heard. Mr. G.
renewed the assertion, that he and his friends always had been willing
to put the nation in a state of defence. As to the frigates, he gloried
in his vote against them; but with respect to the use of them, the
gentleman was mistaken. They were intended to be sent against the
Algerines only.


FRIDAY, March 30.

_Relations with France._

Mr. ALLEN observed, that when the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES sent
his first Message to the House, announcing the receipt of despatches
from our Commissioners in Paris, he stated that it would take some time
to decipher the despatches which he had received. Some days afterwards,
on the 19th instant, he sent another Message informing the House, "that
it was incumbent on him to declare that he saw no ground of expectation
that the object of their mission could be accomplished on terms
compatible with the safety, honor, or the essential interests of the
nation."

It had been observed, in the course of the debate in the Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union, and not in the most candid and
proper manner, that the papers received from our Commissioners ought to
have been laid before the House, and the PRESIDENT had been charged with
withholding them. He supposed gentlemen would have been satisfied, and
he was, with the information which the PRESIDENT had already
communicated, that our Commissioners are not received, and that France
refuses to hear us. But, though he was himself satisfied with the
information he had at present, he believed there were many gentlemen in
the House who wished for more, because there is a paper printed in this
city, which is continually insinuating that there is something in these
despatches which, if they were made known, would show that the conduct
of the Executive has been improper; because he found that paper often
speaking the language of gentlemen in this House, and which spoke it, he
believed, on this occasion; and because, if this is not true, he wished
the people to be undeceived; or if true, that he and those who thought
with him, that no such blame existed, might be convinced of their error;
he proposed the following resolution, to which he hoped there would be
no objection:

      "_Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be
      requested to communicate to this House the despatches from
      the Envoys Extraordinary of the United States to the French
      Republic, mentioned in his Message of the 19th instant, _or
      such parts thereof as considerations of public safety and
      interest_, _in his opinion_, _may permit_."

Mr. S. SMITH said, he should have no objection to the resolution, if the
latter part of it was struck out. If the PRESIDENT thought it necessary
that any part of the correspondence ought to be kept secret, he would,
as is usual in such cases, inform the House that this was the case, and
the galleries would accordingly be cleared. The communication would then
probably be referred to a select committee, and such parts of it
published as might appear proper.

Mr. ALLEN observed, that there might be parts of this correspondence
which it would not be proper to communicate to this House, even
confidentially. If this was not the case, the PRESIDENT could still
communicate such part of the correspondence in confidence as he may
think proper. He wished to leave the PRESIDENT to act according to his
discretion. Without some portion of this discretion being allowed him,
the Government could not proceed.

Mr. GILES said, no part of the correspondence ought to be kept from
Congress. He was not himself satisfied as to the sincerity of the
proceedings of the Executive of the United States towards France; he
wished, therefore, not only to have the correspondence of our Ministers,
but the instructions which were given to them. Mr. G. defended what he
had yesterday said about the PRESIDENT and these papers, and hoped if
the House called for the papers at all, they would call for all the
papers, and the instructions upon which our Ministers acted.

Mr. LIVINGSTON moved to amend the resolution by striking out all the
words after the 19th instant, and insert after the words "this House,"
"the instructions to and." This was not a time, Mr. L. said, to stand
upon trifling punctilios, which might be proper upon ordinary occasions.
They were now called upon to say whether the country should be preserved
in peace or go to war; yet the correspondence, which ought to convince
the House of the propriety of acting in this or that way, is withheld.
How could they say to their constituents, without this information, all
has been done that could be done to preserve the country in peace, but
war was inevitable? And if war is rushed into headlong, without due
consideration, and consequently without ascertaining whether it is just
or not, can it be expected that the wishes and aids of the people will
be heartily engaged in such a war? They certainly would not.

It would be no answer to say that our negotiation with a foreign power
would by this means be exposed. The communication might be made with
closed doors, and no one could suppose any thing would be exposed by the
members of the Legislature which the good of the country requires to be
kept secret. But gentlemen wish this House to repose the strictest
confidence in one branch of the Government, at the same time that they
say no confidence can be placed in the integrity of this House. [Mr.
ALLEN exclaimed, who said it?] Mr. L. replied, that this was a fair
inference from what had been said.

The latter part of the resolution proposed to transfer a right to the
PRESIDENT, which it ought itself to exercise, as to judging of what it
was proper to publish in consideration of the public safety and
interest. If this power was given to the PRESIDENT, he might withhold
such parts of the papers as might prevent a correct judgment being
formed upon them. He was not himself disposed to cede to the PRESIDENT
the right which he was sent there to exercise for his constituents, of
judging of so important a question, as a question of peace or war. He
could not basely surrender this right. If the papers were called for at
all, he hoped the whole would be called for, in order that the House
might form that sound and temperate judgment for which the present
crisis so loudly calls, and for which the people of the United States
so anxiously look. Indeed, to pass the resolution unamended, would, in
his opinion, be a shameful dereliction of their rights.

Mr. BAYARD thought the propriety of this call upon the PRESIDENT was
extremely doubtful, and, as it regarded the instructions given to our
Ministers, wholly improper. With respect to the communication of the
despatches, it was wholly a matter of Executive discretion to judge
whether it would be proper to communicate them or not. He was one of
those who had so much confidence in the Executive, as to trust to his
candor, understanding, and integrity, to determine upon the propriety of
what he should send to, or withhold from, this House. At a time when it
is not known that our negotiation with France is closed, it would be
extremely imprudent to have the instructions of our Ministers laid
before this House; as what was sent here, notwithstanding any vote of
secrecy, would not long be kept secret. It would soon be in Europe, and
might do us essential injury, by disclosing our ultimatum to France, and
by showing it also to the world. It was in vain, Mr. B. said, to suppose
that one hundred men could keep a secret for any length of time, however
important it might be. To elucidate that assertion, he referred to the
divulging the secret of the British Treaty by a Senator.

But the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) has no confidence in the
Government of this country with respect to its negotiation with France;
and in order to try the sincerity of the Executive, he wishes for the
papers. Does the gentleman by this mean to give the lie to the
Executive? Because in his Message he has told the House that he has
given power to our Ministers to settle our disputes with the French
Republic, and to "make all reasonable concessions." What more does the
gentleman wish? Does he wish unreasonable concessions to be made? Surely
he does not. Did any thing appear in the conduct of the French Directory
to show that our Ministers were not possessed of ample powers? No; the
Directory never knew any thing about their powers, at least so far as
any official communications had been received on the subject. There
could not, therefore, be any ground upon which the gentleman could rest
his suspicions. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be negatived.

Two or three gentlemen were on the floor together.

The SPEAKER said, the amendment to insert "the instructions to and,"
would come first under consideration.

Mr. HARPER said, he did not mean at this time to enter into the merits
of the present question. It was important, and presented itself in a new
light to the House. The original motion he was ready to have voted for;
he did not know whether he might not vote for this. But he wished time
to consider of it. He therefore moved the further consideration of this
question be postponed till Monday.

Mr. ALLEN had no objection to the postponement, except the mover of the
amendment would permit it to be amended by a modification of this sort:
"Such parts of those communications as were communicated to the French
Government."

The question for postponement was put and carried--47 to 41.


MONDAY, April 23.

The SPEAKER attended to-day, and took the chair.

_Stephen Cantrill._

On motion of Mr. W. C. CLAIBORNE, the House resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the report of the Secretary of War on the
petition of Stephen Cantrill; and the report and papers accompanying it
were read. The report was as follows:

      "The Secretary of War, to whom was referred the petition of
      Stephen Cantrill, respectfully reports: That the services
      for which the petitioner prays compensation to himself and
      a company which he commanded, were performed in the month
      of September, 1794, on an expedition conducted by Major
      James Orr, into the Lower Cherokee country, which issued in
      the destruction of two considerable Indian towns, the
      Running Water and Nickajack, the killing of a number of
      Indians, and the taking about twenty prisoners.

      "That the report of Major Orr to Governor Blount, dated at
      Knoxville, the 24th September, 1794, shows, that this
      expedition marched on the 7th of the same month, and was
      ordered by General Robertson, of Mero district.

      "That the orders of General Robertson for this purpose were
      afterwards communicated by himself to Gov. Blount, in a
      letter dated the 8th October, 1794, detailing his reasons
      for the order.

      "That letters from Governor Blount to the Secretary of War,
      dated the 22d of September and 2d of October, 1794, as well
      as the copy of an order, which he states to have been the
      last given by him to General Robertson, previous to this
      expedition, evince that the Governor did not sanction the
      measure.

      "That the Secretary of War, previous to Major Orr's
      expedition, in a letter to Governor Blount, dated the 26th
      July, 1794, strongly discouraged the idea of destroying the
      lower towns of the Cherokees, in the following words, viz:
      'With respect to destroying the lower towns, however
      rigorous such a measure might be, or whatever good
      consequences might result from it, I am instructed
      specially by the President to say, that he does not
      conceive himself authorized to direct any such measure,
      more especially as the whole subject was before the last
      session of Congress, who did not think proper to authorize
      or direct offensive operations.' And that as soon as the
      destruction of the Running Water and Nickajack was
      communicated to him, the Secretary strongly disavowed any
      participation in the business, by his letter to Governor
      Blount, dated the 22d of December, 1794, in these words,
      viz: 'The destruction of the lower Cherokee towns stands
      upon its own footing; that it was not authorized is
      certain.'

      "That the President at all times, as well before as after
      this expedition, endeavored to confine the protection of
      the frontier of the South-western Territory to defensive
      operations, and to restrain from those which were
      offensive.

      "That, on the whole, it appears, the services for which
      compensation is prayed by the petition of Stephen Cantrill,
      were performed on an expedition, offensive, unauthorized,
      and in direct violation of the orders from the President to
      Governor Blount, by whom also they were not sanctioned.

      "The documents referred to, and others connected with the
      subject, are herewith presented, numbered from No. 1 to 9,
      inclusive.

      "All which is respectfully submitted to the House of
      Representatives.

                          "JAMES McHENRY.

      "WAR OFFICE, _April, 1798_."

The reading being finished, Mr. W. C. CLAIBORNE said, that, in his
opinion, this claim was founded on the principles of justice; and he
trusted every member who had attended to the reading of the documents,
must accord with him in opinion, that the Nickajack expedition,
undertaken by Major James Orr, in 1794, into the Lower Cherokee country,
was authorized by General Robertson; and it remains now to be decided,
whether soldiers shall not be entitled to pay until they have previously
assured themselves of the legitimate authority of their commanding
officer. At the time when this expedition was set on foot, a war raged
between the United States and the Cherokee nation of Indians, the
horrors of which bore hard upon the district of Mero; the very existence
of the settlement was threatened; scarcely a day passed without some one
or other of the inhabitants, or of their acquaintance, being murdered.
Information was received that the Indians were embodied in order to
carry the war into the settlement. What was the General to do? Was he to
stand still without making any attempt to avert the danger? The safety
of the people required him to act, and he struck the first blow, which
was a defensive measure authorized by the usage of all nations. The
citizens on this expedition obeyed the command of their officer; they
did not think it necessary to inquire by what authority he acted; all
for them to be assured of was, that he was an officer of the United
States, and this they well knew, as this was not the first time they had
served under him. Without a discipline of this kind no military
operation could be carried on. General Robertson acted also under the
authority of Governor Blount, who acted under the orders of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Having then performed this duty--a duty,
too, which put an end to a war which might have cost the United States a
million of dollars--he trusted the petitioners would be compensated for
their services. The amount, he believed, would not be more than about
$4,000, as the party was out only twelve days. To effect this purpose,
he proposed the following resolution for the adoption of the committee:

      "_Resolved_, That the proper officers be directed to settle
      the accounts of the militia who served on the expedition
      commanded by Major James Orr against the Cherokee Indians,
      in the year 1794."

This resolution was agreed to without opposition. The committee rose,
and after some few observations, it was agreed to in the House, and a
committee appointed to report a bill accordingly.


TUESDAY, April 24.

Mr. W. C. C. CLAIBORNE, from the committee appointed, reported a bill
directing the payment of a detachment of militia, for services performed
in the year 1794, under Major James Orr, which was twice read and
committed.

_Provisional Army._

A bill from the Senate, authorizing the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
to raise a provisional army of 20,000 men, was read the first time; and
upon motion made to read it a second time,

Mr. NICHOLAS objected to the second reading of the bill, as he believed
it possessed a principle which could not be assented to. He did not
believe it was necessary to pass a bill of this sort under any possible
modification. The highest act of Legislative power was, by it, proposed
to be transferred to the Executive, viz: the power to raise an army,
which he was to exercise at his pleasure. If an army was necessary, the
Legislature ought to raise it; but he did not think it was necessary at
present. Indeed, when discussing the bill for providing a naval
armament, gentlemen had said that members had been willing to make
preparations for defence on the land, where there was no danger, but
were unwilling to do it at sea, where the greatest might be expected. He
did not believe there could be any necessity for going into a measure of
this kind at the present session. In case of predatory attack, the
militia would be equal to repelling them. Mr. N. said he lived in a part
of the country perhaps more defenceless than any other; but, so far as
he or his constituents were concerned, he did not wish for a force of
this kind. He was willing to confide for defence on the militia of the
country.

Mr. OTIS thought it very extraordinary that the gentleman from Virginia
should endeavor to surprise a part of this House into a decision upon
this bill in this stage of it. He hoped he would consent to its taking
the usual course. The gentleman had gone into the merits of the bill; he
could not follow him, because he had not heard it read; so far as he did
hear it, he was of opinion that the gentleman had anticipated objections
which did not lie against it. He seemed to suppose that this bill
declared that a standing army should be raised. It does no such thing;
it only declares that if existing circumstances shall make it necessary,
then the PRESIDENT shall raise an army not exceeding a certain number of
men. It may happen that the necessity may not exist; but the gentleman
from Virginia must be able to fathom the intentions of France further
than he could pretend to do, if he could say that no such necessity
would exist. If what was said by the agents of that Government to our
Envoys could be relied on, there was a direct threat to ravage our
coasts. He hoped, however, no invasion would take place; but, when he
said this, he calculated upon the French acting as reasonable beings,
but perhaps he calculated delusively. Indeed, they are now threatening
the invasion of a country, where one may suppose they would have as
little chance of succeeding as in this country; and was the idea, then,
to be so much scoffed at, as not to suffer a bill, intending to provide
against it, to be read a second time? If the arms of our citizens were
to be tied up, and our militia were many of them without arms, with what
should we oppose such an attempt, if it were made? What, said he, is to
prevent Victor Hugues sending over two or three frigates? It had been
said that he expected open war, and that he was ready for it. In short,
he thought it would be the most disgraceful conduct that ever was
attempted in that House, if the bill should be rejected without a second
reading. It would be in vain to talk of unanimity, if a bill from the
Senate was to be treated in this way. If the gentleman persisted in his
motion, he trusted he would find himself nearly alone.

Mr. GALLATIN wondered that the gentleman from Massachusetts should be so
greatly surprised at a motion of this kind, because if he had attended
to the rules of the House, he would have found that it was a course
expressly prescribed by them. It had been acted upon before during this
session. The principle, he said, was well understood. When a member
disapproves of the principle of a bill altogether, and does not wish to
go at all into a discussion of the detail, he moves to reject it before
it goes to a second reading.

This bill goes to authorize the PRESIDENT to raise an army. He did not
know what was meant by a provisional army. He did not find any thing
said in the Constitution of the United States relative to provisional
armies, or of giving the PRESIDENT power to raise armies. He found
mentioned there no other kind of defence than an army and militia. It
says Congress shall raise and support an army, not provide for the
raising of an army; but this bill is to enable the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES to raise an army. The constitution has declared that the
raising of an army is placed in Congress, but this bill goes to declare
that this power shall be vested by law in the PRESIDENT. That is the
principle of the bill: and if Congress were once to admit the principle
that they have a right to vest in the PRESIDENT powers placed in their
hands by the constitution, that instrument would become a piece of blank
paper. If it were to be admitted in one case, it would be admitted in
another; and, if admitted in one department, it might be admitted in
another. The power to raise taxes, he said, is contained in the same
article of the constitution which says Congress shall raise armies. And
if they could delegate the power of raising an army to the PRESIDENT,
why not do the same with respect to the power of raising taxes? He
supposed the House would next hear of provisional taxes, to be raised if
the PRESIDENT shall think fit. Mr. G., therefore, thought the principle
inadmissible. If the circumstances of the Union required an army, let it
be raised; if not, he wished to give no power to raise it--especially,
as the PRESIDENT, if he saw necessity, could call Congress together, if
he should find that the circumstances of the country required it. Mr. G.
thought the House had already decided that no additional army was
necessary at present, in agreeing to an additional regiment of
artillery; as the select committee, when they brought in that bill, had
the report of the Secretary of War before them, which stated, besides
the regiment of artillery, that other additional force would be
necessary; and having reported no other, it was to be supposed they
thought no other necessary. But, if it was thought the House had not
gone far enough, he was willing to go farther, but not willing to
transfer their power to judge of the propriety of raising an army.

Mr. DANA hoped this bill would not be rejected on its first reading. It
required no labored arguments to prove that the motion might be made;
but more than had been adduced to show that it ought to be adopted. He
thought the gentleman from Massachusetts ought not to have been
surprised at this motion, because it was best calculated for exciting
alarm. It was said the Senate proceeded in a similar way on the bill
sent up from this House for a repeal of the stamp act; but that question
had already been agreed upon in the Senate on a distinct proposition,
and there was, therefore, no necessity for going again into it. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania had said that when the House agreed upon an
additional regiment of artillery, they negatively decided against any
other standing force. The gentleman might put what construction he
pleased upon that vote, he could assure him for himself that he had no
such idea when he voted.

This bill, Mr. D. said, provided for the raising of a regular force, in
case the PRESIDENT shall think the situation of the country requires it.
He is also authorized to accept of the services of the volunteer corps.
The bill could be amended in any manner which gentlemen thought proper.
But the gentleman from Pennsylvania does not know what a provisional
army means. He believed this was no new principle. He believed it was
acted upon when the three additional regiments were raised to the then
existing corps. It was in principle the same as when an army is directed
to be raised, but where the PRESIDENT has power given him to suspend the
raising of it, if he shall see it necessary.

Mr. SEWALL said that, though the present motion be not irregular in
point of form, yet it is a manner of proceeding very objectionable at
this time. His colleague had complained of this motion being a surprise
upon the House. He had good reason so to consider it. And the House will
consider whether it is expedient, without entering into a consideration
of the bill, without seeing whether any alteration could be made in it,
so as to render it more agreeable to gentlemen, thus to attempt to
destroy the bill. What was the motive of the gentleman from Virginia in
making the motion might easily be discovered. He had obtained leave of
absence, which might have a tendency to hurry him in his political
course. He wished to be heard on this subject, but this hurry of his to
return home ought not to hurry the House in its proceedings. Those
gentlemen who had determined to take this course had the advantage of
others who were unprepared for such a motion.

Mr. HARPER believed, notwithstanding what had been advanced by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GALLATIN,) that this was a very
unprecedented measure; because however prepared the House may be on some
occasions, at the first blush of business, to decide upon the abstract
principle, yet it was perfectly novel in their proceedings to reject a
bill on its first reading, which contains such a variety of
propositions, and which is capable of such a variety of modifications as
the present. It was also as little consonant with the present situation
of the country as it was with their usual modes of proceeding. The
allusion to the decision on the bill for repealing the stamp act (as had
been shown) was no way applicable. He could see no other view in a
proposition of this kind but a determination to resist every measure for
the defence of the country. If the intention had not been to destroy the
bill, it would have been suffered to have taken its usual course, and
attempts would have been made to amend it. If a provisional army was not
liked, gentlemen might have had the army immediately raised; or, if
20,000 men were too many, fewer might have been proposed. If gentlemen
did not think the army immediately necessary, and did not choose to
leave it with the PRESIDENT to judge of that necessity, they might make
it to depend upon a declaration of war by France, on an invasion, or in
case Victor Hugues were to bring his troops, or send his threatened
frigates against us, or if an insurrection should be excited by our
enemy, then the PRESIDENT should be empowered to raise an army.

But gentlemen say this bill ought to be rejected, because it is
unconstitutional. Could gentlemen be serious in making this objection?
Were troops ever raised in a different manner? And if they had the power
to authorize the PRESIDENT to raise troops immediately, they could
certainly do it under such contingencies as they thought proper. Did not
Congress intrust the PRESIDENT with the discretionary power of borrowing
money, of, in some cases, fixing salaries, &c., which powers were
equally vested in them with the power of raising armies; and this must
be the case, except gentlemen insist that Congress should itself do all
the acts committed to it; and if so, they must always be in session.

But the gentleman from Pennsylvania says, that if this power be
delegated to the PRESIDENT, Congress may as well intrust the PRESIDENT
with the power of raising provisional taxes. He had no hesitation in
saying, that he believed this might be done; that the House might
determine upon a tax, and authorize the collecting of it, only in case
the PRESIDENT should find it necessary, or in case a certain event
should take place.

With respect, then, to the expediency of the measure--he did not speak
of the expediency of raising 20,000 men, because any other number might
be determined upon--but as to the thing itself. What is the internal and
external state of this country? Do we not know that the enemy has in
view a plan upon which they place great reliance--of gaining over to
their cause a certain class of men, who abound in the Southern part of
this country, and by whose means they intend to subjugate or destroy the
country? We do know this--gentlemen from the Southern States know it;
yet they say it is impossible to raise any regular force to repel the
enemy. He could not believe, that when we had to meet an enemy, who has
always fought by means of domestic insurrection, who is now subverting
the most ancient Governments in the world by these means, it would be
consistent with any maxim of common sense to be unprepared for the
worst.

What, said he, is our external situation? Do we not see the nation with
whom we are at variance find quarrels with every country who is not
strong enough to resist her? Does she not injure us on every side? Do we
not hear of depredatory threats, and the mischiefs she has the power of
doing us, urged as reasons why we should submit to her? And yet, after
being told of these designs, shall we sit with our arms folded, and make
no defence? For the measures already taken will be nothing without this.
Fortifications would be nothing except supported by a sufficient number
of infantry and cavalry.

What, he asked, is the situation of the West Indies? Were they not told
that Victor Hugues, with 5,000 of his best troops, is ready to make a
blow upon the Southern country, whenever the word of command shall be
given? They knew that these troops existed; they had been seen, and the
desperate character of their leader was also known. Yet, with this enemy
upon our threshold, within four or five days' sail of us, we still fold
our arms, and say we will make no defence.

When he reflected upon these things, he could not help deploring that
fatal blindness, that stubborn spirit of opposition, in certain
gentlemen, which could hide from their view the danger of our present
situation; that, at a period when the veil is rending from before the
eyes of the community; when those who have been the most blind
out-of-doors begin to see, that those gentlemen in this House, who, from
their ancient birth and fortunes, might be supposed to possess the true
American spirit, should still persist in their blind, their destructive
course, was greatly to be lamented. And though he could not doubt the
fate of this bill, yet that there should be a few men found supporting
measures which tend directly to the destruction of the country, he could
not help lamenting.

Mr. BALDWIN did not agree with the gentleman who had just sat down, that
the present motion was either unprecedented or improper. When it is
proposed to make a law on any subject, it presents itself to discussion
on two grounds, the principles of the law and the details. The proper
stages to debate the general principle on which the law is to be
founded, by the rules of this House, are, when it is proposed to
introduce the law, and at the third reading, when it is considered as
finished, and on its passage; the intermediate stages of the discussion
are all supposed to be employed to settle and adjust the detail. He had
often regretted that members, having been accustomed to different modes
of proceeding in their State Legislatures, were so apt to disturb and
keep unsettled their modes of proceeding in this House. He knew it was
sometimes a practice, after a bill had been read the second time, and
was referred to be shaped and formed by free discussion in Committee of
the Whole, a member would rise to amend the bill by striking out the
first section, declaring, at the same time, that he made the motion for
the purpose of destroying the bill--a mere law fiction, under color of
detail and amendment, to contest the original principle and destroy the
bill. Without doubt the commencement of the business is the regular
stage to contest the principle. If it originates in this House, it is on
a motion in Committee of the Whole, expressing in general terms the
expediency that such a law should be provided; if it comes from the
Senate, the same question presents itself after the first reading, in
the words of the present motion, which are the very words prescribed by
the stated rule of the House. If on this question the majority of the
House appear in favor of the principle of the bill, it goes on through
the stages of its detail and formation, and at the third reading the
general question occurs again, shall the principle, detailed as it now
appears, pass into a law? He was sure no member could object to the
fairness and propriety of the present motion.

As to the principle of the bill, he must say, it did not meet his
approbation. If the House is convinced it is necessary to raise an Army
of twenty thousand men, as the bill now proposes, they ought to say so
at once, and let it be done; if they are not convinced that it is
necessary, the law ought not to pass, the Army ought not to be raised
till they are convinced it is necessary. The constitution made the
Legislature the sole judge on this subject. The present bill says it is
not necessary to raise this Army now, but perhaps it may be before
Congress meets again, it therefore proposes to transfer the right of
judging on this subject to the Executive; he thought it a very improper
transfer of Legislative power. It has been said that all our troops are
raised thus provisionally. If attention is paid to those laws, it will
be seen that they did not pass till the Legislature was convinced that
circumstances then required the troops to be raised; a clause is added,
that if circumstances should alter so as to make the troops unnecessary,
the PRESIDENT might forbear to raise, or discharge them; it gives him
power to disband the Army, but not to raise one.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, as the principal objection against this bill seemed
to arise from an idea that the militia would be found sufficient for
every purpose of defence for this country, he thought gentlemen had
better concur in letting the bill go to a second reading and be
committed, and before it again came under consideration, the militia
bill would probably have been determined upon. He was pleased to hear
gentlemen say that the country must be defended, and if an effective
militia could not be had, it must be done by a force of this kind. For
his own part, from the proceedings already had upon the militia bill, he
had not much to hope of its passing; and if not, gentlemen would
certainly see the necessity of some additional standing force. Mr. R.
could not conceive what objections could have been induced by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (as he was not in the House when he spoke)
on a constitutional ground. Mr. R. adduced, as in point, the law
enabling the PRESIDENT to call out troops in consequence of the Western
insurrection, and that making provision for the effectual protection of
the frontiers of the United States. Mr. R. then mentioned his
expectation of despatches being received from our Ministers in Paris in
the course of twelve hours (a particular mention of which has already
been made) which might convince all of the propriety of going into this
measure; for he believed it was the wish of all to defend the country
with vigor and effect, and that they only differed as to the means of
doing it.

Mr. MCDOWELL was in favor of the motion for rejecting the bill, as it
contained two principles which he thought inadmissible; the first,
because it delegated Legislative power to the PRESIDENT; the other, as
it respects volunteer corps. The first, he believed, would be
unconstitutional, and the last would go to the destruction of the
militia of the United States. If our situation be such as it had been
figured to the committee by the gentleman from South Carolina, they
ought to turn their attention to it, and create an army themselves, and
not direct the PRESIDENT to do it if he shall judge proper. But if there
be no real appearance of danger, but it is merely conjectural, then it
is not necessary to act. Gentlemen have talked of members folding their
arms and doing nothing for the defence of the United States. It must be
recollected that we have gone considerable lengths in measures of
defence. We have voted large sums for the frigates, for fortifications,
for an additional regiment of artillery, and put in requisition 80,000
militia. If gentlemen can show that these measures, with our former
establishment, are not sufficient for our present situation, he was
ready to go further, but he was not willing to delegate any power lodged
with that House to another branch of the Government.

It was well known, Mr. McD. said, that it had been the wish of the late
PRESIDENT, that it was also the wish of the present PRESIDENT, of the
Heads of Departments, and many members of Congress, to increase our
Military Establishment, and to fix a standing army in this country. It
has heretofore, however, been opposed with success, except in time of
war. If we were to be involved in war, an army must be resorted to in
aid of the militia; but, in the first instance, the militia might be
depended upon as a sure and safe defence of this country. He was sure
they would be equal to any invasion, and if we were to engage in a
lengthy and formidable war, we must provide accordingly.

Mr. S. SMITH hoped this motion would be withdrawn. At a time like the
present, when the people of the United States are looking up to Congress
in expectation of their taking effectual measures of defence against
what they think not only a possible, but probable event, he wished
nothing to appear like indifference to that object. He agreed with the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) that if gentlemen did not
like the bill, it might be amended; but to reject it altogether would
have too much the appearance of indifference to the defence of the
country. He did not know that this would be the best and most effectual
mode of defence; he thought a better might be established, but he had
not made up his mind upon it. He would, however, throw out an idea or
two for the consideration of the committee. Last session, eighty
thousand man were ordered to be held in requisition. He thought if the
PRESIDENT was to draw out twenty thousand of these for three months, and
when their time expired, to draw out twenty thousand more, and so on,
till the whole had been out, it might afford a sufficient protection,
and more speedily than any other, and it would have the good effect of
making eighty thousand soldiers. In addition to this, there might be a
provision authorizing the PRESIDENT to receive volunteer corps of
cavalry from the Southern States, to be commanded by their own officers,
to serve in a manner as shall be directed by law, the equipments for
which to be furnished by the United States, which would be more
effectual than a general law to raise three or four thousand cavalry.

Mr. MACON said, that some of the arguments used on this occasion were of
an extraordinary nature. The motion was first said to be contrary to
rule, and then unprecedented. It must certainly be allowed to be as
proper to debate a bill on its first reading, as to refuse to refer a
resolution. The fact was, that motions of this kind were made every
session. It was said to be a surprise upon gentlemen; this could not be
the case, if they had done their duty, as it had lain on their desks for
some time. One reason, with him, for wishing the bill to be rejected in
this stage was, that he was desirous of bringing the session to a close.
It was wonderful that gentlemen should persist in bringing standing
troops into the Southern States against their will. If members from that
quarter were of opinion that their militia was sufficient defence, why
will gentlemen be so over civil as to force troops upon them? It was a
little extraordinary that gentlemen most in favor of this bill are the
most opposed to the plan for newly organizing the militia. [Mr. DANA
doubted the fact.] It was said that, because gentlemen are opposed to
this bill, they are opposed to all measures of defence. The fact was
otherwise; they wished only to avoid unnecessary expense. If they were
to bring forward a proposition for raising one hundred thousand or two
hundred thousand men, and it was opposed, they might say the same thing.
He supposed every man wished to defend his country. He had only heard
one reason in favor of committing the bill, and that was, that it was
probable we might shortly hear from our Commissioners. If there was any
certainty in that, it might be ground for delaying a decision.

Mr. GALLATIN could not conceive why it should be insinuated that there
was any thing unfair in making opposition to this bill on its first
reading; for, if gentlemen were not ready to vote against the bill, they
would, of course, vote for committing it, so that the opposition would
have less chance of succeeding now than in the future stages of the
bill. In the meanwhile, he wished to take every opportunity of
endeavoring to destroy the bill. If a majority could be got against it
on the first reading, so much the better, as it would prevent a loss of
time in future discussion. He was not, however, afraid of discussion; he
believed, the more it was discussed, the more the committee would be
convinced of the impropriety of passing this bill. He did not believe,
as had been supposed, that it was capable of amendment in any of its
essential parts. It had been said, that a contingency might be
mentioned; or a time fixed, at the expiration of which, the army might
be raised. Such a bill would, however, be altogether different, as this
bill vested the power of judging of the proper time with the PRESIDENT;
nor could he see how it was susceptible of the amendments suggested by
the gentleman from Maryland. If he thought it was, he would certainly
agree to its being committed, as he perfectly concurred in the plan he
mentioned; but such a system would be so different from the present,
that it would be a much shorter and better course to reject this bill,
and originate a new one.

He thought a bill of this kind was sufficient to alarm the House, and
that it ought to be opposed in every stage, notwithstanding what was
said about the danger of the country; indeed that danger was what
strengthened his opposition to the bill; for, if our danger be, as it is
represented, likely to come from Victor Hugues and his troops, from an
insurrection of the negroes, from disaffected persons, from our enemy
being at the door, it is the duty of Congress to raise an army
themselves, and not to give the PRESIDENT the power of doing it; but if
it is not believed that this representation of danger rests upon any
specific ground, but that it is merely imaginary, then there is no
necessity for giving the PRESIDENT the power, as he can call Congress
together whenever he thinks proper.

If the danger of invasion was great, he should not hesitate to raise an
army, without waiting until the event took place. He thought, therefore,
the gentleman from South Carolina was not right to say that the
opposition to this bill arose from a determined opposition to every
thing like defensive measures. Mr. G. said it was true he did not
apprehend all the dangers which that gentleman had spoken of; but, if
they really did exist, he had a much greater reliance upon the militia
of the country for defence than that gentleman seemed to have. He knew
that though in some States they were not either well disciplined or well
armed, yet they were organized, and had their officers, and the States
being in possession of arms, they would be a much more effectual
defence, and sooner brought together than any other force. He did not
believe that giving the President the power to raise 20,000 men would be
so effectual as the calling out of 20,000 militia, as the one could be
raised immediately, and the raising of the other would be doubtful.
Besides, in proportion as the danger exists, it would be better to call
upon the people themselves to defend their country, than upon hired
troops. If any danger was to be apprehended from the negroes, they would
be best suppressed by the people in the States where they are. A militia
is every where; whereas a standing army may be very distant from any
attack which may take place. A standing army in Virginia, for instance,
would do little good against insurgents in South Carolina; and if an
insurrection of that kind was not immediately suppressed by the people,
the mischief would be incalculable.

Mr. RUTLEDGE thought it necessary, as the gentleman from Virginia had
withdrawn his opposition to the commitment of the bill from what had
fallen from him with respect to the probability of despatches being
shortly received from our Ministers, to state upon what ground he had
said this. [Mr. R. then mentioned the arrival of the _Pomona_ at
Baltimore.]

Mr. MCDOWELL did not think the information given by the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) ought to put off the decision of the
question which had been under consideration.


WEDNESDAY, April 25.

_Provisional Army._

The SPEAKER having declared the question on the bill from the Senate for
the raising of a provisional army, viz: "Shall this bill be rejected?"
to be first in order before the House,

Mr. MCDOWELL said, upon further consideration, and conceiving that
gentlemen might wish to see the contents of the despatches of our
Ministers, which had been mentioned, before they gave their vote on this
occasion, he should withdraw his opposition to the second reading of the
bill.

The bill was then read a second time; and a motion being made to commit
it to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union,

Mr. LYON called for the yeas and nays; but only himself and another
member rising in support of the motion, it was not carried.

The bill was then referred.

_Department of the Navy._

Mr. HARPER called for the order of the day on the bill for establishing
an Executive department, to be denominated _The Department of the Navy_.
The House accordingly went into a Committee of the Whole on this bill,
and rose without making any amendment in the bill; but, upon the
question, in the House, of its passing to a third reading,

Mr. GALLATIN said, he had not proposed any amendment to this bill in the
Committee of the Whole, because, what he had to say upon it, would go
against the principle of the bill. He did not think it necessary to
establish a Navy Department. He did not suppose our Army and Navy were
at present so large as to require two separate departments. If the
business was so much increased as that the persons at present employed
could not do it, they might be increased. Nor did he believe, with some
gentlemen, that such an institution would produce economy; on the
contrary, he always found that the increase of officers was the increase
of expense. Some time ago, it was said that great economy would arise
from appointing a Purveyor of Supplies; but he had seen, from the time
of this establishment, a great and constant increase of expense, in
every thing which relates to supplies. Not seeing the necessity of it,
therefore, he should vote against it, except good reason should be given
for it; for he believed, the moment a department of this kind was
established, the head of it would wish to make it of as great importance
as possible, by endeavors to extend the object of his superintendence.
He called for the yeas and nays upon the question, which were agreed to
be taken.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS did not feel disposed to vote for this bill. It appeared
to him that the Secretary of War, with officers under him, would be
sufficient for the management of our naval concerns also. It was some
time after the constitution was framed before the War Department was
established. Whenever an office was established, something was always
found for it to do. Soon after the War Department was established we had
an Indian war; and after that Indian war ceased, another establishment
was made under the name of the Accountant's Office. If the business was
increased, new clerks might be employed, but he should be against any
new department. If we were engaged in hostilities, and our naval power
of course increased, such an establishment might be necessary; but at
present he did not think it necessary, nor did he think our revenue
equal to the support of a Navy which should require such an
establishment to take care of it. If this office was to superintend the
construction of vessels, persons acquainted with this business might be
employed under the Secretary of War. The present expense of the War
Department was $18,250 a year; and though there would not be much to do
in this new office, he supposed the expense would not be much less; and,
besides, Congress would be importuned, from session to session, to
increase our naval force. Mr. W. said he was desirous of making every
defence for our country, yet he wished to keep down our expenses as much
as possible. If circumstances called for going further into the business
of the Navy, he should not object to it.

Mr. SEWALL said, when the House was considering any subject relative to
the increase of the Navy, complaints were made of the enormous expenses
and of the little responsibility which attends the business; and when it
has been said that the greatness of the expense might have arisen from a
want of knowledge in the persons who had the care of the business, it
was said that defect ought to be remedied. This department is intended
to do that, and, by the expense of a few hundred dollars, he had no
doubt thousands would be saved. When talking about vessels, it was
complained that too great an expense was incurred on this object; now it
is said there is no object for the proposed officer to attend to. But
the gentleman from New York (Mr. WILLIAMS) was afraid, if this office
was established, it would be the means of increasing the Navy. This
certainly could not be done, contrary to the will of Congress.

He thought there were obvious reasons for the establishment of this
department. It was well known that an officer might be well acquainted
with the business of the army, without knowing any thing about a navy;
and a man employed at the head of such a department ought to have some
knowledge of the business committed to his care. Mr. S. said, however
well the present Secretary of War might be acquainted with army
concerns, he believed he was not conversant with naval matters. In
consequence of this, he had a number of agents employed under him.
Indeed, the War Department had so much business on its hands, as not to
be able to pay a sufficient attention to our naval establishment. He
therefore believed it was necessary to make this new establishment,
especially as the Navy Department was likely to be considerably
augmented.

Mr. S. SMITH believed, after all the struggles which had been made on
this subject, it would at length be found necessary for the United
States seriously to turn their attention to the establishment of an
efficient naval force; and the sooner gentlemen could bring their minds
to this, the better it would be for the general good. If this
proposition had been brought forward at the commencement of the session,
he should have thought it unnecessary; but, from the increase which had
been made during this session, he thought the establishment proper.
$950,000 had been appropriated for providing twelve vessels; a number of
galleys were also contemplated. A ship of war or schooner, it appears,
has been built on the lakes, and some galleys on the rivers. These, with
the frigates and cutters, form an establishment which will require a
naval man to superintend it. An expenditure of two millions of dollars,
he supposed, would be authorized this session; and a man knowing
something of naval architecture will be able to save more, in the course
of this year, to the United States, than will pay ten years of the
expenses of this office. A merchant going into the building of vessels
without a knowledge of the business will find the truth of this fact.
The great expenditure attending the building of the frigates, he
supposed had been chiefly owing to the want of such an establishment as
the present. The gentleman from New York had stated the expense of the
War Department at $18,250; but one-half of that expense was incurred in
the office of the Accountant of the War Department; and as there would
be no need of a new Accountant, the expense could not be doubled. The
duties of the War Department are greatly increased, and might be further
increased during the present session; and an expenditure of the kind
proposed might save the throwing away of thousands of dollars.

Mr. MACON said, the arguments in favor of this bill were derived from a
want of knowledge of naval affairs in the War Department. He thought
that might be supplied without the establishment of a new department;
but he believed the building of the frigates had mostly been carried on
under the direction of the captains who were to have the command of
them. More clerks had been added to the War Department, in consideration
of the business which the Navy had occasioned. He believed the more
officers were appointed, the more money would be expended.

Mr. OTIS said, the gentleman from New York had opposed this bill on
different grounds from the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He did not make
any reply to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, because he expected
opposition from him and some others, to every measure which had the
defence of the country for its object; and, as the session was drawing
to a close, he thought it best to have as little debate as possible,
and that the sooner the question was taken the better; but when he saw a
gentleman rise in opposition to it, upon whose support he calculated, he
was apprehensive lest it might have an effect upon other persons on
whose support he also relied. The gentleman from New York seemed to
apprehend some new and heavy expense was to be incurred, and that some
greater caution was now necessary than heretofore. What saving, then,
does he mean to make by opposing the establishment of this office? Since
he supposes the same clerks will be sufficient, it will only be the
salary of the chief officer, which, Mr. O. supposed, would be $3,500--a
greater saving than that which would be made by such a person in every
ship built or purchased. Taking the expense of our Naval Establishment
at one million dollars a year, it would only be an expense of one-third
per cent., which every one must allow was a mere trifle, to have the
money of the public well expended. The services of the War and Navy
Departments were, he said, perfectly distinct. The duties of the War
Department became every day more arduous, and whatever gentlemen may
think, they must become still more so. This opposition coming from a
friend, he could not suppose it arose from a bad motive, but merely from
a narrow conception of what is conceived to be the agricultural
interest. Agriculture and commerce, said Mr. O., are twin sisters, and
cannot live separate from each other; they must live together, or expire
at the same moment. It was the duty of gentlemen representing
agriculturists thus to speak to their constituents. It was an axiom
realized by every politician in the world. The fact was, that every
thing spent upon the Naval Department was so much saved, in which the
agricultural part of the country partake very largely.

Mr. T. CLAIBORNE never remembered to have heard such language as had
fallen from the gentleman last up. He laments, said Mr. C., that a
gentleman who usually voted with him should dare to think for himself.
Are gentlemen's opinions and language thus to be circumscribed? [Mr. O.
explained.] Mr. C. continued, the gentleman was willing that all
questions should now be taken without debate. Does this mean, said he,
that there are a majority of members in this House who must always be in
the right, and a minority always in the wrong? If this be the case, they
had better dismiss the minority, and do the business themselves. Were
not gentlemen any longer to express their difference of opinion? Would
this be the way to keep the Government together, or to preserve harmony
in the country? If this were to be the situation of things, he should
regret it with tears in his eyes. He had himself no mathematical
certainty that any opinion of his was right; nor did he think the
gentleman from Massachusetts ought to expect men to bow to his. Such an
assumption led to mischief of a serious kind. What! to say we have a
majority, and therefore we will have no debate. [The SPEAKER said no
such expression had been made use of; if it had, he should have checked
it.] Had it not been for an expression of this kind, he should not have
risen on this question. He wished to hear every man deliver his opinion
freely. Mr. C. did not believe the bill to be a proper one, and he
should therefore vote against it.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, he should be opposed to the bill, if he had no other
objection to it than that it went to countenance the idea, according to
the gentlemen from Maryland and Massachusetts, that this country must go
into the establishment of a large naval power. The great saving to be
derived from this office, he understood to be from savings in the
building of vessels; but, as the twelve vessels which were lately voted
are proposed to be purchased, ready built, he supposed this reason did
not apply at present. If there was no intention, therefore, (which he
trusted there was not,) of carrying our Naval Establishment to any
considerable extent, he could see no occasion for the creation of this
office. For, if this Secretary of the Navy was appointed, he would also
be obliged to rely upon others, in a great degree, for information.

Mr. HARPER said, the naval defence which this House thought necessary
for the service of the country having been voted, he could not agree
with those gentlemen who consider this as a question of defence. He
thought it a question of economy, and, in this view, he should reply to
some observations which had been made upon it.

He believed our naval defence would be much more efficaciously and
speedily provided by means of the proposed establishment than if the
bill was rejected. So far, indeed, it is a question of defence, but only
collaterally so. The point of view in which this bill should be
considered, is simply this: will it not effect with more speed and
economy the marine defence now existing, as well as that contemplated?
He himself had no doubt as to the fact. Indeed, he would ask the
gentleman from North Carolina, whether, if he were about to erect a
distillery on his place, he would employ his overseer to do it, who,
though he might understand the business of his farm very well, knew
nothing of building. He certainly would not; and if this would be bad
policy in an individual, it would be equally so in a nation. Besides,
the expense would be so trifling as only to amount (as had been stated)
to one-third per cent., though traders were in the habit of paying five
per cent. to have their business done.

But it was said, that if an office of this kind was established, it
would soon create business. But the business is already created. We
have, said he, already a marine of fifteen ships of war. This, he knew,
was comparatively a small force, but in the establishment of which we
shall yet expend two millions of dollars, and the support of which will
amount at least to $700,000 or $800,000 annually. When the War
Department was first established, the object of its care was not, he
believed, of equal magnitude.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS was ready to acknowledge he did not believe it could
ever be the interest of this country to go into the establishment of a
large naval power, and therefore he should not be in favor of the
present bill on that ground. Nor did he think there was any good reason
for dividing the military and naval business, except there was more than
could be attended to by the present establishment. But it was said the
business was of a different nature, and therefore it ought to be in
separate departments, as one man cannot be supposed to understand both
concerns. That objection would apply to any of the other departments;
and whenever this rule of dividing business shall be adopted, we shall
get men of inferior talents to do it. When the Government was
established, it was thought that a War Department would be equal to the
military and naval concerns of this country. But it was said a navy was
not then thought of; it was, however, doubtless thought of when the
frigates were ordered to be built, and it was not then gone into. It
was, however, said that much money had been lost for want of an officer
of this kind. This was mere assertion, and it was by no means clear that
the business would be done better with such an officer than without him.

But it was said, it was necessary to go into this measure for the sake
of appearances. To whom are these appearances to be made? Not to our own
people, but to European nations. The gentleman from Massachusetts says
we ought to adopt their opinion upon this subject. He viewed a policy of
this kind the most fatal of any other to this country. He believed that
the less we had to do with European politics, and their mode of
administration, the better. The only object in view, with that House,
ought to be the interest of their own country. What, said he, is the
situation of those countries which have gone into the establishment of
large navies? They are involved in debt which they never can, and never
will, pay.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, the only point in dispute was, whether a separate
office should be established for the business of the Navy, or whether it
should be put under the care of a superintendent in the War Department.
He wished the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS) had spared his
observations until he had heard those of the gentleman from Maryland,
(Mr. S. SMITH.) It had appeared to him that a superintendent in the War
Department would have been sufficient, and he yet thought so. He did not
think the business of the Navy was so great as to require a separate
establishment. There was more business in the War Department in 1794
than at present, and nothing was then heard of a new department. He
should not have opposed this measure if he had not been convinced that
every measure taken to increase the Navy beyond its present
establishment would have a bad effect on this country. It had been
proposed last winter to purchase all the live-oak timber in the Southern
States; afterwards a proposition was brought forward for the
establishment of navy yards. Those measures had been defeated, and they
were now called upon to establish a new department for this favorite
object. He was not willing to do it. The gentleman from Massachusetts
said there would only be a difference between making a new office, and
continuing to do the business in the War Department, of the salary of
the chief officer; but if he looked at the second clause of the bill, he
would find himself mistaken, as there was in that provision for a
principal clerk, and such other clerks as he shall judge necessary: so
that he may have a clerk for every port in the Union, if he pleases. If
he represented, as the gentleman from Massachusetts does, a commercial
interest, he might be as favorable to a Navy as him; but as that was not
the case, he was opposed to it. He gave his approbation to such
appropriations as he thought necessary; and if, in this instance, he
differed in opinion from the gentleman from Massachusetts, he should
stand excused. He believed with that gentleman, that the commercial and
agricultural interests were closely connected; they differed only as to
the extent to which it was proper to carry our naval defence. He did not
wish, however, at present, to reject the bill. He believed it might be
amended, and he had no objection to the question being postponed for
that purpose.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, he was almost tempted to smile at the arrogant
pretensions of some gentlemen in this House, in their treatment of
others, at least their equals on this floor, whatever they might be out
of doors, being equally with them Representatives of the people. They
were told by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS) that opposition
was expected, was looked for, from certain gentlemen; that no argument
was necessary on the occasion, because those members who were opposed to
all measures of defence, would oppose this measure also; but that those
who had originated the measure would carry it into effect. This simple
declaration of a strength of party was also attended with a very
handsome rebuke of one of his colleagues (Mr. J. WILLIAMS) for having
dared to doubt the propriety of the measure before the committee. He was
happy to find this rebuke had produced its effect, and that though his
colleague was at first very decidedly against the bill, he was now
disposed to doubt; and the effect of another rebuke, he supposed, would
obtain his vote in favor of the new establishment. For his own part,
neither the rebuke, nor the preliminary observations with which it was
accompanied, had produced any effect upon him. He did very much doubt
the propriety of the measure; for, although there was a great deal of
business in the War Office, and the same person could not be supposed to
be acquainted with military and naval affairs, if a ship-builder was to
have the appointment, he could not think such a person fit to be one of
the great council of the nation; and it must be recollected that the
person who holds this office will become one of the counsellors of the
President on all great concerns.

It was said that this establishment was necessary, in order to give an
appearance of defence to Europe, as if the establishment of a Department
of the Navy was to have the effect to do away all our past and to
prevent future injuries. But our appearance to Europe was not all; the
example of European countries was mentioned. All were said to have a
Marine Department. The practice of Europe, Mr. L. said, had proved
itself to be a bad one, as the navies of those countries had proved the
ruin of them.

The yeas and nays were taken upon this bill going to its third reading,
and decided in the affirmative--yeas 47, nays 41, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard,
      Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran,
      Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis,
      George Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster,
      Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger
      Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper,
      William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, Samuel
      Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis
      R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Josiah Parker, Thomas
      Pinckney, John Read, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman,
      Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Thompson
      J. Skinner, Nathaniel Smith, Samuel Smith, Peleg Sprague,
      George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas
      Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

      NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
      Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Stephen Bullock,
      Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew
      Clay, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph,
      William Findlay, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James
      Gillespie, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph
      Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston,
      Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair
      McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New,
      William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford,
      Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van
      Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, John
      Williams, and Robert Williams.[31]


THURSDAY, April 26.

The bill for establishing an Executive Department, to be denominated the
Department of the Navy, was read the third time and passed--42 to 27.

_Military Appropriations._

On motion, the House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole
on the bill appropriating for the Military Establishment for the year
1798; when, the question for filling the blank in the Quartermaster's
Department with $200,000 again recurring,

Mr. GALLATIN moved to fill the blank with $150,000, which was the sum he
had proposed on a former day, since which, he said, the House had
received a number of statements from the Secretary of War, in order to
induce a larger appropriation. As there seemed to be a general
concurrence of opinion to restrict the expenses of the War Department,
he wished some gentlemen, better able to do it than himself, would
compare the number of troops in service with the sums there required.
Mr. G. noticed a number of items which appeared to him unaccountably
extravagant, and contrasted the very great expense incurred on the
North-western frontier with that of the troops employed on the seaboard.
Mr. G. also took a view of the expenses under this head from the year
1789 to the present time, in order to show that $150,000 would be a
sufficient appropriation.

After commenting pretty freely and at large on the estimates from the
War Office, Mr. G. said, he believed there was some radical defect with
respect to the connection subsisting between the Accountant's
department, the Treasury and War Departments, which prevented a proper
investigation of accounts. So far as relates to the Treasury Department,
the accounts were always very clear, and there was no ground of
complaint; but, from the connection which subsists between the War
Department and the Accountant's department, there seemed to be a want of
responsibility.

In the details which had been laid before the House, Mr. G. said, he
found items under the head of contingencies, which he should never have
expected to have found there; one was for the pay of an inspector of the
troops and garrisons of the United States, at a salary of sixty dollars
a month. He could not say such an officer was not necessary; but if he
was, he would say he ought to have been provided for by law. The other
item was for a much larger sum, viz: the pay of an engineer of the
fortifications of the United States, at a salary of three thousand
dollars a year, which was a salary greater than that of the Secretary of
War. It appears that this engineer was engaged for three years; but,
after he had been some time in the service, two thousand dollars were
given him over and above his pay, to relinquish his contract.

After a few observations from Mr. DANA, in favor of the Secretary of
War,

Mr. SHEPARD rose, and went over the different items contained in the
statement read yesterday, particularly the boatmen, $13,000; the
pack-horsemen, $5,000; the wagoners, $7,000; the laborers, $3,000; the
armorers, $6,000; the artificers, $14,000; hire of expresses, $6,000;
and fuel, $8,000. He could not tell how so many boatmen, pack-horsemen,
and wagoners, could be employed (for it was not for boats, pack-horses,
and wagons, but for the men alone;) and what so many laborers could be
employed in he could not imagine. He did not see why the soldiers could
not do all the labor the Army had to do themselves. When he was in the
Army, he was at no expense like this. And how the repairing the arms for
three thousand men could cost $6,000 he could not tell; nor could he see
how $14,000 could be expended on artificers. If we were to be involved
in war, it would not do to expend money in this manner. It was easy to
write down thirty, fifty, or one hundred thousand dollars for this or
that, but when the taxes came to be laid, the money would not be so
easily raised. Mr. S. passed over a number of articles, till he came to
fuel. He thought $8,000 a year for fuel, in a country where the trees
were ready to fall upon them, was a very exorbitant charge. While he was
in the Army, it never cost him sixpence for fuel. The United States had
better purchase the land upon which the timber grows, at once; they
would be able to get it for a much less sum. If these expenses were to
be incurred for five thousand men, what would be the expense of an Army
of thirty thousand men? This estimate, he was sure, must be much too
large; and it became Congress to be careful how they gave encouragement
to such charges as these, for the country would scarcely be able to
support the expense of any considerable establishment if more economy
was not used.

The question on filling the blank with two hundred thousand dollars, was
put, and negatived without a division.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to fill the blank with $150,000. He said that, with
respect to the integrity of the Secretary of War, he did not doubt it in
the least; as to his talents he had no opportunity of forming a correct
judgment of them; he was, however, some judge of accounts, and he saw
enough of them to authorize the declaration which he had made as to the
improper connection of the different departments. He had spoken of facts
only.

The question for filling the blank with $150,000 was put, and carried
without a division.

After agreeing to several other items, amongst which was one for the
vessels on the Lakes, the committee rose, the House agreed to the
amendment, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

_Presents to Ministers._

The SPEAKER said he had received a letter this morning, signed Thomas
Pinckney, which he was desired to lay before the House. It was
accordingly read. It stated that when he (Mr. Pinckney) had concluded
the late treaty with the Spanish Government, the Spanish Minister, the
Prince of Peace, informed him the presents usually given in such cases
would be prepared for him; and that also when he took leave of the
British Court, the like information was given to him by the Minister
there. To both of which he replied, that the Constitution of the United
States forbade its Ministers from receiving any present from any foreign
Prince or State, without the consent of Congress; that in due time he
would ask that consent, and act accordingly. This letter asks for the
determination of Congress.

It was moved by Mr. RUTLEDGE to refer this letter to a select committee.

Mr. MACON wished it to go to a Committee of the whole House.

After some observations, the latter motion was negatived, and the former
carried.


FRIDAY, April 27.

On motion of Mr. W. C. CLAIBORNE, the House went into a Committee of the
Whole on the bill directing the payment of a detachment of militia, for
services performed in the year 1794, under the command of Major James
Orr. The bill was reported without amendment, and ordered to be
engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, May 2.

_Naturalization Law._

On motion of Mr. SEWALL, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on
the report made yesterday by the Committee for the Protection of
Commerce and the Defence of the Country, on the subject of
naturalization; and the report having been read, and the first
resolution for prolonging the term of residence before aliens shall be
admitted as citizens, being under consideration,

Mr. SEWALL said, the term of residence now required from foreigners
before they can become citizens, is five years. The committee think this
period too short; it is much shorter than the period adopted by the
French Government. The committee were of opinion that a residence of at
least ten years should be required; but this might be left a blank in
the bill, and afterwards filled.

Mr. HARPER believed that it was high time we should recover from the
mistake which this country fell into when it first began to form its
constitutions, of admitting foreigners to citizenship. This mistake, he
believed, had been productive of very great evils to this country, and,
unless corrected, he was apprehensive those evils would greatly
increase. He believed the time was now come when it would be proper to
declare, that nothing but birth should entitle a man to citizenship in
this country. He thought this was the proper season for making the
declaration. He believed the United States had experience enough to cure
them of the folly of believing that the strength and happiness of the
country would be promoted by admitting to the rights of citizenship all
the congregations of people who resort to these shores from every part
of the world. Under these impressions, which, as he supposed they would
have the same force upon others as upon himself, he should not detain
the committee by dilating upon, he proposed to amend the resolution by
adding to it the following words, viz: "that provision ought to be made
by law for preventing any person becoming entitled to the rights of a
citizen of the United States, except by birth."

The CHAIRMAN declared this amendment would be a substitute to the
resolution before the committee, and therefore not in order.

Mr. OTIS said, he would propose an amendment, which he believed would be
in order, which was as follows, namely, "and that no alien born, who is
not at present a citizen of the United States, shall hereafter be
capable of holding any office of honor, trust, or profit, under the
United States."

Mr. HARPER moved to amend this amendment, by adding the following words:
"or of voting at the election of any member of the Legislature of the
United States, or of any State."

Mr. H. said, he was for giving foreigners every facility for acquiring
property, of holding this property, of raising their families, and of
transferring their property to their families. He was willing they
should form citizens for us; but as to the rights of citizenship, he was
not willing they should be enjoyed, except by persons born in this
country. He did not think this even was desirable by the persons
themselves. Why, he asked, did foreigners seek a residence in this
country? He supposed it was either to better their condition, or to live
under a Government better and more free than that they had left. But was
it necessary these persons should at once become entitled to take a part
in the concerns of our Government? He believed it by no means necessary,
either to their happiness or prosperity, and he was sure it would not
tend to the happiness of this country. If the native citizens are not
indeed adequate to the performance of the duties of Government, it might
be expedient to invite legislators or voters from other countries to do
that business for which they themselves are not qualified. But if the
people of the country, who owe their birth to it, are adequate to all
the duties of Government, he could not see for what reason strangers
should be admitted; strangers who, however acceptable they may be in
other respects, could not have the same views and attachments with
native citizens. Under this view of the subject, he was convinced it was
an essential policy, which lay at the bottom of civil society, that none
but persons born in the country should be permitted to take a part in
the Government. There might have been, Mr. H. acknowledged, individual
exceptions, and there may be again, to this general rule; but it was
necessary to make regulations general, and he believed the danger
arising from admitting foreigners generally to citizenship would be
greater than the inconveniences arising from debarring from citizenship
the most deserving foreigners. He believed it would have been well for
this country if the principle contained in this amendment had been
adopted sooner; he hoped it would now be adopted.

Mr. S. SMITH believed it would be best first to decide upon the
resolution as reported; if it was negatived, the gentleman from South
Carolina might then introduce his amendment as a substitute. To adopt
the resolution as reported would be, he believed, to agree upon an _ex
post facto_ regulation. It could not be intended, he should suppose, to
prevent persons who had resided in this country two or three years,
under the expectation of becoming citizens at the end of five years,
from that privilege.

Mr. CHAMPLIN suggested whether, if this amendment was adopted, it would
not prevent foreigners, who are not at present citizens of the United
States, from becoming officers in the Military or Naval Departments of
the United States. If so, he believed it would be proper to insert the
word "civil" before "officers."

Mr. OTIS acknowledged that the objections of the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. S. SMITH) were, in some degree, well founded; but there might be
regulations introduced into the bill to avoid them. The present law, he
believed, directs that persons shall give notice of their intention of
becoming citizens of the United States. Where this notice had been
given, he thought such persons should be excluded from the operation of
the law. These resolutions having only been laid upon the table this
morning, he wished, however, that the committee might rise, in order to
afford a little time for consideration. He wished to exclude all
foreigners, whom he could constitutionally exclude, from holding offices
in the United States; but not to entrap such as are in the way of
becoming citizens.

Mr. HARPER said, that, having had it suggested to him that the
constitution would not admit of restraining the States in their
admission of citizens, he should withdraw his amendment for the present,
until he had had an opportunity of examining the constitution in this
respect.

The motion being put for the committee to rise, it was carried, and the
committee rose accordingly.


THURSDAY, May 3.

_Naturalization Law._

Mr. SEWALL moved the House to go into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, in order to resume the consideration of the
resolution which had been reported on the subject of aliens.

Mr. OTIS wished to propose a resolution to the House, before it resolved
itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, as a
substitute for the first resolution, reported by the Committee for the
Protection of Commerce and the Defence of the Country. It was to the
following effect:

      "_Resolved_, That no alien born, who is not at present a
      citizen of the United States, shall hereafter be capable of
      holding any office of honor, trust, or profit, under the
      United States."

Mr. VENABLE did not think the House were authorized to enact such a
principle into a law. If taken up at all, it ought to be considered as a
proposition for amending the constitution. If it was thought necessary
by gentlemen to amend the constitution in this way, he should not object
to going into the subject. After foreigners were admitted as citizens,
Congress had not the power of declaring what should be their rights; the
constitution has done this. Foreigners must, therefore, be refused the
privilege of becoming citizens altogether, or admitted to all the rights
of citizens.

Mr. OTIS had no idea that this proposition could be considered as a
proposition to amend the constitution. If the House had the power to
amend the naturalization law, and to extend the time of residence
necessary to entitle an alien to citizenship, they could certainly
extend it to the life of man. The idea of citizenship did not always
include the power of holding offices. In Great Britain no alien was ever
permitted to hold an office, he wished they might not be allowed to do
it here.

The SPEAKER said this was not the proper time to argue whether this
proposition ought to be considered as an amendment to the constitution.
The Committee of the Whole would report upon it as they thought proper.

Mr. VENABLE did not object to the resolution being referred, but thought
it ought to go rather to an ordinary Committee of the Whole than to that
on the state of the Union, as he did not believe Congress had the power
of saying, men who were entitled to hold offices by the constitution,
shall not hold them.

The motion for reference was put and carried, there being for it 45
votes.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, Mr. DENT in the chair; when

Mr. OTIS moved to postpone the consideration of the resolution formerly
under consideration, for extending the time of residence of aliens
before they should be entitled to citizenship, in order to take up the
resolution which he had proposed, and which had been referred to this
committee.

The question was put and negatived--51 to 26.

The question then returned upon the motion made by Mr. OTIS yesterday,
to amend the first resolution, by adding words of the same tenor with
those contained in the resolution referred this morning.

Mr. MACON said, whether it would be good or bad policy to adopt a
regulation of this kind, he would not inquire, because he believed the
PRESIDENT and Senate could always appoint such men as they thought
proper to office. If a man is a citizen, he is eligible to office
agreeably to the constitutional rule, and that could not be altered by
law. If the people chose to elect a foreigner as a member of the
Legislature, if he had been a citizen seven years, Congress could not
say he should not be eligible. They might, indeed, make the time of
residence, to entitle a foreigner to citizenship, so long, as to prevent
him in that way from holding a seat in the Legislature; but, after a man
is a citizen, he must be entitled to the rights of a citizen.

Mr. OTIS said, gentlemen could certainly read the constitution for
themselves, and draw their own conclusions from it. He himself had not
the smallest doubt as to the constitutionality of restricting aliens in
the way proposed. He believed that Congress, having the power to
establish an uniform rule of naturalization, could, if they thought
proper, make a residence of forty or fifty years necessary before an
alien should be entitled to citizenship, which would extend to the whole
life of a person, and prove an effectual exclusion. If Congress, then,
had a right to exclude foreigners altogether from citizenship, any
modification of that right was certainly within their power, and would
be an advantage to aliens, for which they ought to be grateful. There
would be nothing in this contrary to the constitution; for it was always
acknowledged that where an absolute power may be exercised, a
conditional power may also be exercised. What advantage, he asked, was
derived to this country from giving aliens eligibility to office? The
people of this country were certainly equal to the legislation and
administration of their own Government, comprising all the aliens who
are now become citizens. He had no doubt but many aliens would become
very valuable acquisitions to this country; but he had no idea of
admitting them into the Government. He did not wish to open the door to
the intrigues of other countries in this way; since we know there are
countries whose chief attention is paid to the obtaining of influence in
the internal concerns of the countries over which they wish to have
dominion. And he could see it possible that persons might be furnished
by such a country to come here and buy lands, and by that means, in
time, get into the Government. Great Britain, he said, was very careful
of the avenues which led to her liberty in this respect. Aliens were
there excluded from holding all places of honor, profit, or trust. The
situation of America heretofore was different from what it is at
present. It had not only been thought good policy, in times past, to
encourage foreigners to come to this country, but also to admit them
into the Legislature, and important offices. But now, said he, America
is growing into a nation of importance, and it would be an object with
foreign nations to gain an influence in our councils; and, before any
such attempt was made, it was proper to make provision against it; for
if the time ever should arrive when a number of persons of this
description had found their way into the Legislature, a motion of this
kind would of course be very odious. If, however, gentlemen were of a
different opinion and think the object would be better accomplished by
extending the residence of aliens, he should not object to that course
being taken, though he thought the one he proposed perfectly within the
power of the House.

Mr. SITGREAVES wished that, in attaining an object in which all seemed
to concur, they might avoid any constitutional embarrassment; and this
it was allowed might be done by extending the time of residence of
aliens so far, as to prevent them from ever becoming citizens, by which
means persons who could not be considered as having a common interest
with the citizens of the country, would be effectually excluded from
holding offices in the Government.

Mr. OTIS withdrew his amendment; and then all the three resolutions were
agreed to, without a dissenting voice.

The committee rose, and reported the resolutions. The two first were
concurred in; but, on the question being put on the third,

Mr. N. SMITH said, a foreign Government might do an act tantamount to
war, without declaring it, yet according to the wording of the
proposition, the citizens of that country could not be removed. He
therefore moved to amend the proposition by adding the words, "being
native citizens of any country the Government whereof shall be at war
with the United States."

Mr. SEWALL said, the only objection that he had to this amendment arose
from the consideration that Congress alone had the power of deciding on
the question of war, and he could not therefore see how it could be
determined that any nation was at war with us, until the declaration was
made by that nation, or by Congress.

Mr. OTIS wished his friend from Connecticut would admit of an amendment
which he held in his hand, in the place of that which he had offered. It
was in the following words: "or shall authorize hostilities against the
United States."

Mr. N. SMITH had no objection.

Mr. MCDOWELL thought this motion more objectionable than that of the
gentleman from Connecticut. It ought to be remembered, Mr. McD. said,
that inducements had been held out to foreigners to come to this
country, and many of them had come with a view of becoming citizens of
this country, and many, he believed, were as good as any amongst us. Out
of respect to these foreigners, he should not wish to place them in the
situation which this amendment went to place them in; because it might
be said, hostilities were authorized when no war was declared, and these
people might be treated as if the nation from which they came was at war
with us, when no war existed. It had been said our population was now
sufficient, and that the privileges heretofore allowed to foreigners
might now be withdrawn. In some parts of the country, this might, in
some degree, be the case; but he knew there were other parts which
wanted population. From this consideration, and as he did not wish
unnecessarily to distress the minds of foreigners who had taken up
their residence amongst us, he should vote against this amendment.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS was persuaded, that, if this proposition passed, no good
citizen need be afraid of being disturbed. He had no objection to this
resolution without the amendment, nor had he any particular objection to
the amendment.

Mr. RUTLEDGE was so far from believing that this amendment would check
the immigration of foreigners, that he believed it would encourage it.
Foreigners came here to live under a good Government, and the more
secure the Government was made, the greater would be their desire to
live under it; and he believed a greater security could not be given to
it, than was proposed to be given by this amendment. It was wished to
vest a power in the President to send out of the country persons who
were natives of a country with whom we are at war, or who may have
authorized hostilities against us. In fact, in the situation of things
in which we are now placed, the PRESIDENT should have the power of
removing such intriguing agents and spies as are now spread all over the
country. What, said Mr. R., would be the conduct of France, if in our
situation? In twenty-four hours every man of this description would
either be sent out of the country or put in jail, and such conduct was
wise. Was there nothing, Mr. R. asked, to admonish us to take a measure
of this kind? Yes, there was. A gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. DAVIS) had
said, that a person was in that State delivering commissions into the
hands of every man who was so abandoned as to receive them. Other means
were also taken to alienate the affection of our citizens; and are we
still, said he, to say we will not send these persons out of the country
until a declaration of war is made? If these persons are suffered to
remain, France will never declare war, as she will consider the
residence of these men amongst us as of greater consequence than the
lining of our seaboard with privateers, or covering our coasts with men.

Mr. VENABLE did not wish to show any particular encouragement to
foreigners; but, if persons thought they could live happier here than in
their own country, he should not object to their making the change. He
could not agree to the amendment. Suppose hostility was committed upon
the property of any of our citizens by France, such hostility might not
be sufficient cause for placing all our commercial citizens in a
situation of having their property seized. Many cases might be deemed
hostility by the PRESIDENT which ought not to go to cut off all
communication between the citizens of the two countries. In such a case,
if any of the citizens of France should be taken up here, it would
produce a similar conduct towards our citizens in that country, which
would be allowed to be a serious evil.

Mr. SEWALL again urged, as an objection to this amendment, the
constitutional power of Congress to declare war. Too many circumstances
of insult and aggression, he allowed, had been experienced by this
country from a foreign power, which might have been understood by other
nations as war, and might have been so considered by this country; yet,
as it is an act of Congress to declare war, we could not be considered
as at war until Congress declared us to be in such a state, except war
was declared against us. This provision was not intended for any
particular case, but as a general provision, which might at any time be
called forth by proclamation. It should, therefore, be as well guarded
and definite as possible. If the words proposed were introduced, the
proposition would be rendered too indefinite; and the PRESIDENT might
proceed to send aliens from this country, and of course cause our
citizens in a foreign country to be sent from thence, or to be
imprisoned, and their property confiscated, at a time when Congress
might not judge it expedient to go to war. France, said he, has now done
towards the United States what might be considered as hostility. Suppose
we pass a law which calls upon the PRESIDENT to act, what ought the
PRESIDENT to do? Was he to determine the point whether France has
authorized hostilities against the United States? If so, he would
doubtless say she had, and in consequence every Frenchman in this
country will be liable to be removed out of the country, and our
citizens who happen to be in France will be placed in the same
situation. Mr. S. said, though it might be proper for Congress to
declare this to be the state of the country, he thought it would be
improper to give the PRESIDENT this power. He wished the power of
sending persons out of the country to be confined to such cases as were
particularly dangerous, which were included in the resolution without
this amendment. As to foreigners guilty of crimes against the United
States, they ought to be apprehended and punished according to the
existing laws: the present regulation was not pointed at them.

Mr. OTIS said, as his colleague had chosen to call his amendment
indefinite, he must excuse him when he said he considered the resolution
without it, as trifling and ineffectual, and argued a timidity which
ought not at this time to be shown by this country; and had he not been
thoroughly acquainted with the uprightness of intention and the purity
of the motives of his colleague, he should really have doubted whether
he was sincerely desirous of exerting all the energies of the country in
her defence; but, being persuaded of these, he would suppose that he
himself was wrong in his conception on this occasion, and would make a
few observations as to the ground upon which he formed his opinion.

He believed it would not be proper to wait until predatory incursions
were made--until the enemy was landed in our country, or until what
shall be considered as threatening or actual invasion appeared--before
any steps were taken on the subject now under consideration. He was of
opinion that when an enemy authorized hostilities, that was the time to
take up that crowd of spies and inflammatory agents which overspread the
country like the locusts of Egypt, and who were continually attacking
our liberties. The provision would doubtless be exercised with
discretion. There might be Frenchmen in this city and others (and he
doubted not there were) who were peaceable, well-disposed persons, and
against whom it never could be thought necessary to exercise this power;
but there were other persons, not only in this city, but in others, who
have not only been extremely instrumental in fomenting hostilities
against this country, but also in alienating the affections of our own
citizens; and it was men of this description whom he wished to remove
from the country.

It is proposed by this resolution to give the PRESIDENT the power to
remove aliens, when the country from which they come shall _threaten_ an
invasion. Some believe that this country is at present threatened with
an invasion, and with a ravage of our coasts, yet others say that the
despatches from our Envoys only consist of unauthorized conversations
with X, Y, and Z, and therefore not to be relied upon. Mr. O. thought
this a more indefinite power than that which he proposed to vest in the
PRESIDENT. His opinion was, that something ought to be done which should
strike these people with terror; he did not wish to give them an
opportunity of executing any of their seditious and malignant purposes;
he did not desire, in this season of danger, to _boggle_ about slight
forms, nor to pay respect to treaties already abrogated, but to seize
these persons wherever they could be found carrying on their vile
purposes. Without this, every thing else which had been done in the way
of defence would amount to nothing.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, from the observations of the gentleman who had just
sat down, it would appear that hostilities had already commenced between
this country and France. If this is the case, and the House knew it, why
not say so, and make preparations accordingly? Why pass acts fitted for
a state of war, without declaring that that is the state of the country?
[Mr. OTIS said, if the gentleman from North Carolina would bring forward
a proposition of this kind, he should be ready to vote for it.] Mr. McD.
expected the gentleman was prepared for war, and, therefore, that he
would have brought forward a resolution to that effect himself.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) had not considered this
amendment with his usual accuracy, when he said that the adoption of it
would prove an encouragement to foreigners to come to this country. He
thought it could not be very flattering encouragement to foreigners, to
tell them, "if you come here, and your Government commits any act of
hostility against the citizens of this country, you will be liable to be
imprisoned, or sent out of the country."

But it was said the country swarmed with spies and seditious persons. If
this was the case, he should be glad if gentlemen would point them out;
if they could, he should be as glad as they to take measures against
them. A person in Kentucky had been alluded to. Under the authority of
_Genet_, he believed some commissions had been issued; but he did not
believe that any had been issued since. It was also known that there had
been another Minister of another country who had adopted a similar
practice. He still remained here, and might still be carrying on his
mischievous schemes.[32] [The SPEAKER said the resolution was general.]
It was said that hostilities having been committed on our commerce by
France, they would authorize a war with France, (though Great Britain
had conducted herself much in the same way, and nothing was said as to
her,) and that therefore the PRESIDENT ought to be empowered to send all
Frenchmen out of the country, however peaceably they might be residing
here, if he thought proper to do so. This he could not consent to. It
was too large a power. He should therefore vote against the amendment.

Mr. SITGREAVES considered this as one of the essential features of the
system of defence about which Congress had been employed during the
present session, in order to enable us to meet the dangers which
threaten us. He believed, that though it might be extremely wise and
prudent to enter into regulations for securing our peace at all future
periods, yet it was most particularly their duty to concert measures of
defence and protection in our present exigencies. He believed the
business of defence would be very imperfectly done, if they confined
their operations of defence to land and naval forces, and neglected to
destroy the cankerworm which is corroding in the heart of the country.
There could be no question on this subject. It is well understood by
every member of the community. There is no occasion for specific proof
that there are a great number of aliens in this country from that nation
with whom we have at present alarming differences; that there are
emissaries amongst us, who have not only fomented our differences with
that country, but who have endeavored to create divisions amongst our
own citizens. They are, said he, assiduously employed at this moment,
and it is much to be lamented that there exists no authority to
restrain the evil. It was therefore peculiarly incumbent on Congress to
add to their other measures of defence, such powers as will protect the
country against this evil. He believed this could not be effected
without the adoption of some such principle as that under consideration.
If the power was too limited, the enemy would not be met. There could be
no difficulty, Mr. S. said, in point of right. All understood the rights
to which aliens are entitled by the laws of nations. They are no more
than the rights of hospitality, and this right varies according to the
relation in which the country from which they come, and that in which
they reside, is peaceable, or otherwise.

We do not owe to the citizens of France residents in this country (since
France had been mentioned) the same hospitalities which we owe to those
foreigners who are alien friends; though he confessed there were rights
of hospitality which could not be done away in time of war, particularly
as it respects alien merchants, which were provided for in this
resolution. And except a person had an actual agency in designs which
would endanger the peace of the country, though he was ordered out of
the country, a free passage would be given to himself and effects; and
if actually engaged in designs against the country, there would be a
strong necessity for restraining the liberty of any such persons.

It had been well asked, whether we ought to wait till the enemy landed,
before any measures were taken to remove persons from the country, who
would be ready to join them by thousands, or take advantage of knowledge
we have of their hostile intentions towards us? He thought there could
be no doubt on the subject. He knew there were aliens in this country,
of valuable characters, whose acquaintance ought to be cherished and
cultivated. Such men would be in no danger from the proposed provision.
It was meant only to operate against factious and bad men, who abuse the
liberty allowed to them of residing in this country, and these all must
see the necessity of attending to. France, said he, will not admit an
alien of any description to reside in her country without a card of
hospitality, and shall Congress scruple to go the length of this
amendment? He hoped not.

Mr. ALLEN said, he would move an amendment which would supersede that
under consideration, by making the resolution extend to _all aliens_ in
this country. He wished to retain none of the restraints which are in
the present resolution. Nothing but his respect for the gentleman who
made this report (Mr. SEWALL) would have prevented him from suspecting
that there existed some latent and mischievous design in this business.
The proposition goes upon the supposition that none but the citizens of
a particular nation can be dangerous to this country; whereas he
believed that there are citizens of several other countries who are as
dangerous, who have dispositions equally hostile to this country with
the French--he believed more so. He believed the whole country was aware
of this. Mr. A. alluded to the vast number of naturalizations which
lately took place in this city to support a particular party in a
particular election. It did not appear to him necessary to have the
exercise of this power depend upon any contingency, such as a
threatening of invasion, or war, before it could be exercised. He wished
the PRESIDENT to have it at all times. He moved an amendment to this
effect, which went to enable the PRESIDENT to remove at any time the
citizen of any foreign country whatever, not a citizen, regarding the
treaties with such countries. If gentlemen took a view of the different
States of Europe which had been subdued by the French, Mr. A. said, they
would not think it either wise or prudent to wait for an invasion, or
threatened invasion, before this power was put in execution. Venice,
Switzerland and Rome, had been overcome by means of the agents of the
French nation, at a time when they were in a much less alarming
situation than we are at present; and the first disturbance in those
countries was made the pretext of open hostility. This has been the
effect of _diplomatic agency_; of emissaries within and without, who
have bred quarrels, for the purpose of forming pretexts for measures
which have led to the subjugation of those countries. He believed there
were citizens in this country who would be ready to join a foreign power
in assisting to subjugate their country. What passed before our eyes,
and every day offended our ears, were so many proofs of it. Not many
weeks ago open threats were made to disturb the peace of the country. He
hoped, therefore, with all these things before them, the amendment which
he had proposed would be agreed to.

Mr. SEWALL said, being one of the committee who made this report, he
supposed he fell in for a share of that censure which had been so
liberally cast upon it by his colleague, and the gentleman last up from
Connecticut. The gentleman from Connecticut had thought fit to condemn
the committee for not having considered cases which were not referred to
them. It was not referred to them to consider what France had done in
all other countries with whom she had had disputes, or what this country
should do against France; but what should be done with respect to aliens
in this country generally. Civil policy regarded aliens in two lights,
viz: alien friends and alien enemies. He did not contemplate the making
of this country a wall against all aliens whatever; or that no alien
should come here without being subject to an arbitrary authority, such
as is known only to the French Directory. If the existence of such a
power as shall be able to place every alien in the country in a dungeon,
was necessary to quiet the fears and apprehensions of the gentleman from
Connecticut, he should not be willing to grant it. Indeed, it appeared
to him that the fears and apprehensions of that gentleman arose from
some defect in his own organization, or disease of his body (which he
believed might be better cured by the physician, than by any thing else)
rather than from any real ground of alarm.

What, said Mr. S., is to be feared from the residence of aliens amongst
us? Any thing to ruin the country? He acknowledged many inconveniences
arose from this circumstance, but more from our own unnatural children,
who, in the bosom of their parent, conspired her destruction. But did
the gentleman wish to increase the evil, by saying that persons born in
foreign countries, however regular and orderly their conduct may be,
shall be liable to be imprisoned, or sent out of the country, but that
citizens of this country, however reprehensible their conduct, should
have nothing to fear? The committee were not called upon to report on
this point. He was himself of opinion that more ought to be done, and
that aliens from any country should be liable to be removed, in case of
misbehavior; but he did not wish to leave the business wholly with the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The committee had reported only in part;
they had yet to consider what steps would be proper to be taken against
aliens, or citizens, guilty of criminal proceedings; but when gentlemen
saw the addresses which were pouring in from all parts of the country in
favor of the measures which had been pursued by Government, and
expressions of determination to support every measure in defence of
their country, was any thing to be feared from a handful of aliens? It
was a reproach to the country to suppose it. If aliens were found to be
guilty of seditious practices, let them be restricted; but not placed
under an arbitrary authority. He never wished to see the Government of
this country in such a situation. Our situation, said Mr. S., is not
like that of the Directory of France, whom all of the nation are
cursing; we have, therefore, no necessity for the strong measures
adopted by them. But if gentlemen were determined to arrest every alien
in the country, let them bring forward a resolution of that kind; but,
in making regulations against alien enemies, let us not subject every
foreigner who comes to this country, however well intended he may be, to
the fear of a dungeon or removal. If gentlemen wished to make the
resolution more general, and to provide for cases, in which war was
first declared by this country, though he had before said he did not
think it necessary, he had no objection to indulge them, by inserting
the words, "between which and the United States there shall exist a
declared state of war." But unless the United States were inclined to
assume the character of the Turks or Arabs, such a regulation as was
recommended by the gentleman from Connecticut could not be adopted.

Mr. ALLEN had no particular anxiety that the resolution should pass to
the extent which he had proposed. If gentlemen did not think it
necessary, he should not persist in it. He was sorry the gentleman from
Massachusetts should have discovered in him any disease of body which
was capable of giving rise to personal fear. He believed he possessed as
little as most men. As to the necessity of the measure which he had
proposed, he would mention two circumstances which led him to think it
necessary. A person in this city, who has too respectable a standing,
and who is doing too much business in it, has declared that he wishes to
see a French army land in this country, and that he would do all in his
power to further their landing. He had heard nearly the same thing from
another quarter. He thought, therefore, that there ought to exist a
power which should be able to send such persons out of the country. Not
that he was himself either afraid of being assassinated or having the
city burnt. But the chairman of the committee had said, that this
subject was yet before them. This he did not know, before the gentleman
said so; for, having made a report upon the subject, he supposed that
they had done all they intended to do upon it.

Mr. DANA was opposed to this amendment. He thought the provisions of
this resolution ought to be made definite, as it contemplated
regulations which Congress would be willing to have in existence at all
future times; and though the principle upon which the residence of
aliens was regulated is laid down in the law of nations, as it relates
to monarchical Governments, yet, in this country, where the sovereignty
of the country is vested by the constitution in Congress, these
regulations must be fixed by law. The danger of war with which the
country was threatened had forced the subject upon Congress at this
time, and this being the case, he was desirous of adopting some
regulations of a permanent nature respecting it. If any other
regulations were necessary with respect to our present situation with
France, he thought they ought to be made special and temporary.

Mr. ALLEN withdrew his amendment; when

Mr. OTIS'S proposition returned, the question on which was put and
negatived--55 to 27.

Mr. SEWALL made the motion which he had suggested when he was last up,
viz: to add the words, "between which and the United States shall exist
a state of war."

Mr. OTIS hoped this motion would not prevail, as he thought it would
deprive the resolution of every good feature which it at present
possessed; for it would prevent the exercise of the power in any other
case than in a state of war; and as all the expressions were future, it
supposed that such a state did not exist at present. He confessed he set
no value at all upon any law, unless it was adapted to the present
exigencies of the country. Gentlemen might talk as they pleased about
permanent regulations; he believed they ought to provide against the
residence of alien enemies existing in the bosom of the country, as the
root of all the evil which we are at present experiencing, and he could
not conceive any mode of doing this, but by applying the remedy
immediately to the evil. Gentlemen talk about a declaration of war. No
such thing scarcely ever precedes war. War and the declaration of war
come together, like thunder and lightning. Indeed, if France finds she
can enfeeble our councils by refraining to declare war, and that we will
take no measures of effectual defence until this is done, it is probable
she will not declare it, but continue to annoy us as at present. He
therefore thought, if the select committee had not been ripe for making
a report fully on this subject, they ought to have delayed it until they
were.

Mr. SEWALL explained.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he had suffered no little from finding the
difference of opinion which existed between the chairman of the
committee who made the report on this subject, and gentlemen who usually
voted with him. He saw that difference of opinion was essential and
radical. He did not mean to go into the subject, but merely to make a
proposition, and call the yeas and nays upon it. It was to add the
words, "or shall declare hostility against the United States."

Mr. DAVIS moved a postponement of this question till to-morrow, as he
wished time to consider of it. He had some doubts as to the
constitutionality of such a provision.

Mr. SITGREAVES had no objection to a postponement, if time was wanted
for consideration; but he could not see on what constitutional ground
this motion could be objected to.

Mr. GALLATIN was in favor of the postponement. He would suggest to his
colleague that part of the constitution which might be in the way of
this motion. A distinction was made by it between actual hostility and
war.

If it had only gone to have made a difference between declared and
actual war, by striking out the word "declare," it would have removed
the objection. If there be a difference between a state of war and of
actual hostility, there is also a difference in the relation between
alien subjects of a nation with whom we are at war, and those of a
nation with whom we are in a state of actual hostility. If this
distinction be correct, by turning to the 9th section of the
constitution, it is found that the migration of such persons as any of
the States shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
Congress, prior to the year 1808. He understood it, however, to be a
sound principle that alien enemies might be removed, although the
emigration of persons be not prohibited by a principle which existed
prior to the constitution, and coeval with the law of nations. The
question was, therefore, whether the citizens or subjects of nations in
actual hostility can be considered as alien enemies. The term "actual
hostility," is vague in its nature, and would introduce doubt as to its
true import. He should, therefore, be in favor of the postponement,
except the mover would consent to have the word "declare" struck out in
the way he had mentioned.

The question for a postponement was put and carried; and the two first
resolutions were referred to a select committee, to report a bill or
bills accordingly.


FRIDAY, May 4.

_Presents to Ministers._

Mr. BAYARD called for the order of the day on the resolution from the
Senate granting leave to Mr. Pinckney, our late Ambassador to Great
Britain and Spain, to receive certain presents from those courts, on his
taking leave. The House accordingly went into a Committee of the Whole
on the subject, and the resolution having been read,

Mr. BAYARD moved that the committee concur.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, this was a new subject, and, as it struck him, of
importance. Notwithstanding he felt as much disposed as any member of
the committee to do every thing respectful to our late Minister to
London and Madrid, yet, when he looked upon the constitution, and
reflected upon the intention of the clause which forbids the receiving
of presents by our Ministers, and the consequences which must flow from
a precedent of this kind, he could not easily bring himself to consent
to it, unless some gentleman could show the propriety or necessity of it
in a stronger light than he at present saw it. If we allow our Ministers
to receive presents from foreign courts, on their taking leave, we must
also calculate upon giving presents to all the foreign Ministers who
come here, and these we have every reason to expect, will be constantly
increasing. Besides, he objected to the principle of these presents.
What are they given for? He supposed it was to gain their friendly
offices and good wishes towards the country who gave them. He thought
this improper; and he believed it would be well now to put a stop to the
business, as a fairer opportunity could never occur of trying the
principle, for if it ever could be allowed, in consideration of public
services, it could not be better deserved than in the present case; but
believing the principle to be a bad one, he should, therefore, be
opposed to it.

Mr. BAYARD said, every constitutional objection must vanish on a single
view of the article, because it allows that presents may be received, if
the consent of Congress is obtained; and, so far from the constitution
insinuating that it would be bad policy to allow these presents to be
received, it proves that they might be received if inconvenience in
receiving them could be avoided. He supposed the constitutional
provision was meant to oblige Ministers to make known to the world
whatever presents they might receive from foreign courts, and to place
themselves in such a situation as to make it impossible for them to be
unduly influenced by any such presents. Indeed, he supposed those
presents would produce a directly contrary effect, for when a Minister
was known to have received a present of this kind, he would naturally
be particularly careful of all his actions, lest he should be supposed
to be improperly biased. If presents were allowed to be received without
number, and privately, they might produce an improper effect, by
seducing men from an honest attachment for their country, in favor of
that which was loading them with favors; but any evil of this kind was
securely avoided by the notoriety of the act.

What, said Mr. B., is this present? It is a gold snuff-box, a gold
chain, a picture, or some trifling thing which could have no possible
operation upon any man. It was necessary, he believed, to attend to
these little civilities and ceremonies, as the want of attention to them
often produced hostility between nations. He had some doubt from the
constitution, whether it was necessary in this case, to have applied to
Congress at all for leave to have received these presents, as the office
of this gentleman had expired before they were offered. Under the old
articles of Confederation, a like provision was in being, only that the
receipt of presents by our Ministers was positively forbidden, without
any exception about leave of Congress; but their being allowed to be
received under the present Government, by consent of Congress, shows
that they might be received in certain cases. He had, indeed, been
informed that, notwithstanding the prohibition under the former
constitution, presents were frequently received by Ministers; for,
though persons holding offices were forbidden to receive presents, the
moment their office ceased, and they became private individuals, they
were no longer prohibited from receiving any presents which might be
offered to them. Under these circumstances he thought the resolution
ought to be agreed to.

Mr. W. C. C. CLAIBORNE hoped the present resolution would not be
adopted. When this subject was first brought into view, he felt inclined
to favor the request. This first impression arose from his great
personal respect for the applicant, and the desire he felt to gratify
his wishes. But, upon a little reflection, it appeared to him that
policy dictated the propriety of rejecting the present resolution. So
far as relates to the constitutionality of receiving the presents in
question, he thought no member would join in opinion with the member
from Delaware last up. By recurring to the letter of the gentleman from
South Carolina, (Mr. PINCKNEY) it would appear that these presents were
offered to him when he was about to take leave of the courts to which he
was Minister. He was, of course, at that time, the Minister of the
United States, and came within the constitutional prohibition.

The prohibition in the constitution appeared to him to be bottomed on
sound policy, and of great importance to the security, the happiness,
and freedom of the nation. [Mr. C. read the clause.] The object of this
clause appeared to him very different from what had been stated to be
its object by the gentleman from Delaware. He believed it was intended
to lock up every door to foreign influence, to the influence of courts
and monarchies, which could not but prove baneful to every free country.
He had been told that it was the custom of Europe, when a favorite
Minister was about to take his departure, not only to present him with
presents, but also to confer a title upon him; and if the leave now
asked was granted, a precedent would be established which he apprehended
would, at a future day, bring the question before Congress, whether
leave should be given for a citizen of this country to receive a title
from a foreign monarch, and thus all the folly and vices of European
courts will be brought up for discussion before the Congress of the
United States; and he had no doubt characters might be found who would
desire such a distinction, and others who would advocate the granting of
it. On the contrary, he was persuaded that, if the vote of this House
negatived the present resolution, no future application would be made on
this subject. The reason, in his opinion, which induced the insertion of
a clause in the constitution that presents might be received when leave
of Congress was obtained, was this: That in the course of events, a case
might exist, in which it might be proper for a citizen of the United
States to receive a present from a foreign Government. Many, perhaps,
might be named; he thought of one: Suppose an officer of our navy were
to render essential service to the vessel of a foreign power in distress
on the high seas, it might be proper, in such a case, for Congress to
permit the officer to receive any suitable present as a reward for his
service and benevolent exertions in the clause of the unfortunate. But,
he believed, in all ordinary cases, every present ought to be rejected.

Mr. OTIS saw no ground for the apprehensions which the gentleman from
Tennessee had manifested, as to the effects to be produced by concurring
in the resolution now before them. When every present to be received
must be laid before Congress, no fear need be apprehended from the
effects of any such presents. For, it must be presumed, that the
gentleman who makes the application has done his duty, as he, at the
moment he makes the application, comes before his country to be judged.
In the present case, he supposed no idea could be entertained that our
Minister had not done his duty, or that he had been bribed by a foreign
power, as a reason for not granting the request. But it was strange that
gentlemen should assert that, if presents were allowed to be received,
Congress might next be asked to consent to the introduction of titles;
for the constitution expressly says, presents may be received, but, with
respect to titles, it says, "no title of nobility shall be granted."

Mr. O. said it was altogether a matter of discretion in the gentleman
from South Carolina, whether or not he had asked consent to receive the
presents in question; for he is at present no officer of the United
States, and he might receive them as a private citizen. He believed he
had a perfect right to do so, though it might not consist with the
delicacy of his character. Mr. O. said he had it from the best
authority, that, even under the old Confederation, though presents were
unconditionally prohibited, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr.
Laurens, received the customary presents on their departure from the
foreign Courts at which they were employed. They, to be sure,
communicated the fact to Congress after they had received them. And they
received them for a good reason, because they could not refuse them
without giving umbrage to the Courts which presented them. He,
therefore, thought it very improper for gentlemen to suggest
difficulties of the kind which had been brought forward, as if the
gentleman making the application was personally concerned--it could not
be considered as any object to him. The question was merely whether we
would conform or not to the customs and usages of other nations, with
the presents in question; in which there certainly could be nothing
either dangerous or alarming.

Mr. MACON had no doubt Congress had a right to grant leave to receive
the presents in question, and believed the determination in this case
would fix the usage in future. He believed an application could never be
made to the House, in which there could be less objection to the
applicant, than in the present case. He was convinced that the gentleman
from Massachusetts need not to have said that this was no object to the
gentleman from South Carolina. He was sure no one thought so. He
believed it was improper to bring any personal considerations into the
question. He was sure there had not been a more popular act done for
this country for a long time than the treaty which that gentleman had
concluded with Spain. But the committee were told that this resolution
ought to be adopted, because it was a European custom. If, said he, we
adopt this custom, we must adopt another--that of paying foreign
Ministers who come here. And he owned he should not be willing to see
any of them carry off the money of his constituents, because he did not
think the conduct of any of them was deserving of such a fee.

Mr. BAYARD remarked that the gentleman from Tennessee seemed to be
greatly alarmed, lest the agreeing to this resolution should destroy the
liberties of the country; and that a precedent of leave being given to a
Minister to accept of a gold snuff-box or a gold chain, should hereafter
be brought as a sanction to the granting of titles of nobility. But he
asked the gentleman, as a lawyer, whether he conceived that a precedent
for granting permission to a Minister to receive a snuff-box could be
adduced as a precedent for granting titles of nobility? It certainly
could not. Therefore, as to precedent, the gentleman might feel himself
perfectly at ease. There could be no doubt but that the Congress of the
United States might give their consent to a citizen receiving a title
from a foreign power; but he could not apprehend that they would ever do
so. Was this, then, to be brought as an argument against allowing a
gentleman--against whose conduct the most slanderous tongue had never
said a word--from receiving the customary trifling presents, on his
leaving a foreign Court? He trusted not. He allowed it would be a
precedent for the future in this respect, and that Congress might expect
to be called upon hereafter for similar permissions. But he did not
think there was any thing alarming in this--the amount would be very
trifling; and he did not know that having a few additional gold
snuff-boxes in the country could produce any material effect. As to the
constitutional question, he thought it was as he had already stated it.

Mr. VENABLE wished that every thing which was said upon this subject
might be said without reference to the gentleman making the application,
but that it might be considered as establishing a general principle
which was to operate hereafter. It was said that it was necessary to
accept of these presents as a point of etiquette, and that refusal to
accept of them might give offence. He did not believe this could be the
case, as it was well known to the European Courts that our Government is
established on principles totally different from theirs; and when our
Ministers informed them that their Government did not permit them to
receive presents, it must be a satisfactory reason for not accepting
them. He knew that these presents were sometimes made in pictures,
sometimes in snuff-boxes, and sometimes in money. And, said he, if these
presents were not sanctioned by custom, would it not appear an
indelicate thing to offer these things to a Minister of a foreign
country? It certainly would. If the origin of the custom was, therefore,
a bad one, the United States ought not to adopt it, since they had now
the choice of doing so or not. He hoped the United States would always
make sufficient provision for their own Ministers, and not permit them
to receive any thing from a foreign Court. A contrary custom, to say the
least of it, would prove a very troublesome and disagreeable one.

Mr. W. CLAIBORNE submitted to the gentleman from Delaware, as a lawyer,
whether the committee could gather, from any thing before the House,
that these presents made by foreign Courts consisted of chains or
snuff-boxes? He owned he could draw no such conclusion for himself. But
whatever the present may be, it was immaterial to him in the present
question, because he was convinced that nothing which a European monarch
had it in his power to give, could lessen the patriotism of our late
Minister, or alienate his affections from his country. It was not to the
amount of the present; and whether it was a snuff-box, or any thing
else, which was a thing of no consequence, and ought not to have been
named. He objected to the principle of our foreign Ministers receiving
presents at all from European monarchs. This principle he looked upon
as the more dangerous, because it opened an avenue to foreign
influence--an influence among monarchs--which has always proved the
destruction of Republics.

Mr. THATCHER was in favor of the resolution. Gentlemen seemed opposed to
it on the ground of its establishing a precedent for the future. He did
not think this objection well founded; for, as the constitution does not
absolutely forbid the receiving of presents, the discussion on the
propriety of allowing it in future would not be prevented by the present
decision. Future Houses could refuse or grant leave to receive these
presents. Mr. T. said, it was the natural right of every citizen who
served the country as a Minister to receive presents, and the
constitution did not absolutely take away the right. He considered the
gentleman who now applied to Congress as having a natural right to
receive a present, except some reason was shown to the contrary.
Gentlemen allow they know of no special reason; they allow the applicant
has done the business with which he was entrusted, well. He supposed,
therefore, that gentlemen must themselves vote for it, except they
abandon their own ground.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS hoped, by the vote of this day, the House would get rid
of future applications of this kind. When the subject was first
introduced, he was opposed to it; but, if the question had gone off
without debate to-day, he intended to have voted for it. From the
discussion which had taken place, however, he was convinced it was a
subject upon which they ought not to legislate, since the acting upon it
would produce greater evils than the constitution had provided against.
He believed they ought here to put a stop to the business. If not, he
would rather that our Ministers should be at liberty to receive all the
presents offered to them, than the thing should stand upon its present
footing.

Mr. BAYARD would tell the gentleman from Tennessee on what authority he
informed the committee that the presents in question consisted of what
he had mentioned. Being upon the committee to whom this subject was
referred, he made some inquiry as to what were the usual presents from
the European Courts, and found, that in Holland, it was customary to
give a gold chain and medal; in France, a gold snuff-box; and in Spain,
a picture. It was on this ground that he said these things were of no
consequence. Mr. B. then remarked, upon what had fallen from Mr. R.
WILLIAMS with respect to the expense incurred in discussing this
subject, and said it had been owing to gentlemen opposing the resolution
that so long a discussion had taken place. As to the law which that
gentleman proposed to introduce, he must see that the constitution would
not admit of such a law.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, that, being closely connected in the bonds of
friendship with his colleague, who made the present application, he did
not intend to have said a word upon the subject; but, when he heard
things of a personal nature introduced into the debate, he could not
avoid rising. And, with due submission to the chair, he must say, that
every thing of a personal nature, introduced on this occasion, was, in
his opinion, wholly out of order; particularly when it was said by a
member, "If the gentleman from South Carolina is not satisfied with what
he has received for his services, I am willing to pay him more." The
constitution has said, that the customary presents from European Courts
shall not be received without the consent of Congress; and, accordingly,
when these presents were offered his colleague at the two Courts at
which he was Minister, he declined receiving them, saying, that he would
lay the matter before Congress on his return home. He had done so, and
he could not see any ground of alarm in this. He felt none of that
Republican jealousy which caused his mind to revolt at these civilities.
He rose to dissipate, if possible, those ideas of danger which seemed to
be apprehended from the adoption of the present resolution--the
apprehension that it would break down the barriers which were to keep
out corruption from our Government, and introduce a variety of evils.

Mr. GALLATIN said this question might be considered either as of a
personal, or of a general nature. He had heard gentlemen, arguing both
in support of and against the resolution, speak of the important
services rendered by the gentleman from South Carolina in having
accomplished the treaty with Spain. Nor did he conceive this to be out
of order. He believed, however, the gentleman himself was perfectly
indifferent as to the fate of the question.

Mr. G. had some doubt with respect to the construction of the
constitution on this point. If he was well acquainted with the fact
relative to this business, it stood in this way: When Mr. Pinckney was
sent as Envoy Extraordinary to Spain, he still remained Minister
Plenipotentiary at the Court of Great Britain; therefore he was
altogether precluded from accepting of the present offered to him by the
Spanish Government on his taking leave from that Court; but, with
respect to the present offered to him by Great Britain, it appeared to
him that the moment a Minister receives his letters of recall, and has
taken his leave, he is no longer an officer of the government; and, in
such case, both under the present constitution, and under the old
Confederation, presents have been received. So far, therefore, as
relates to Great Britain, he did not think it was necessary to apply to
Congress for their consent.

He had said, that after a Minister has received his letters of recall,
there was nothing to prevent him from accepting of a present. He might
be told the constitution is lame in that respect; but it was more so
with respect to private citizens, because any private citizen might
receive either presents or titles from a foreign power. It has not,
therefore, effectually shut out corruption. Officers may receive
presents by consent of Congress; but any officer, or member of Congress,
might accept of presents, either in secrecy, or wait till they are out
of office and receive them publicly. Nothing could prevent this but the
infamy that would attach to such an act. Therefore, so far as it was
contended that a disagreement to this resolution would shut out a source
of corruption, it had little effect upon his mind.

But there was another point of view on this subject, which would induce
him to give his vote against the resolution. He considered that if
Congress gave its assent to this proposition, it would be saying that
they approve of the act, and that it is in itself proper that a foreign
Minister should receive presents. If it was, in their opinion, proper to
accept of these presents, the resolution would be affirmed; but if they
were of opinion, that the practice is a bad one; that it is useless in
itself, and ought to cease, they had nothing to do but refuse to
authorize it. He owned it was proper to keep up civilities, when it
could be done by conforming to custom of an inoffensive nature; but when
the constitution stood in the way, it ought always to be respected.

The question on the resolution was put, and negatived--44 to 38.

The committee then rose and reported their disagreement to the
resolution of the Senate; when the question was taken on concurring with
the Committee of the Whole in their disagreement, and decided in the
affirmative--yeas 49, nays 37, as follows:

      YEAS.--George Baer, jun., David Bard, Bailey Bartlett,
      Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan,
      Stephen Bullock, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William
      Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John
      Dawson, John Dennis, George Dent, Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas
      Evans, William Findlay, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James
      Gillespie, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N.
      Havens, Joseph Heister, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke,
      Matthew Lyon, James Machir, Nathaniel Macon, Blair
      McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New,
      Josiah Parker, James Schureman, Thompson J. Skinner,
      William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford,
      Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tillinghast, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
      Phillip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable,
      and Robert Williams.

      NAYS.--John Allen, Abraham Baldwin, James A. Bayard, David
      Brooks, John Chapman, Samuel W. Dana, William Edmond, Abiel
      Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn,
      Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove,
      Robert Goodloe Harper, William Hindman, David Holmes,
      Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, Samuel Lyman, William
      Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis,
      John Rutledge, jun., Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas
      Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Samuel
      Smith, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, John
      E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.


SATURDAY, May 5.

_Additional Revenue._

On motion of Mr. HARPER, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on
the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. DENT in the chair,
when the three following resolutions being read, viz:

      _Resolved_, That it will be expedient to raise an
      additional revenue of ---- dollars annually, by a direct
      tax.

      _Resolved_, That the said tax ought to be laid by uniform
      assessment, on lands, houses, and slaves.

      _Resolved_, That the apportionment of the said tax ought to
      be made among the several States according to their
      respective number of inhabitants, as ascertained by the
      last census.

Mr. HARPER moved to fill the blank in the first resolution with two
millions.

The question was put and carried--47 to 25.

The resolution was then agreed to as amended, as was also the second.

The third resolution being under consideration,

Mr. DAYTON moved to strike out the words "last census," as it might be
determined when the bill came in whether the number of inhabitants
should be ascertained by the last census, or a new one should be taken.

Mr. BAYARD said, the words of the constitution were, "within every term
of ten years;" so that a greater period than ten years could not be
suffered to pass without taking a census, but it might be taken every
year if it were necessary. He believed it would be very proper to have a
new census taken before the tax was assessed, otherwise from the great
increase in the population of some of the States, since the last census
was taken, the tax would not be constitutionally collected, since it is
directed to be laid according to the number of inhabitants.

Mr. HARPER said, he should be glad to see a new census taken at an early
period, so as to relieve the States from any inequality which might
arise from the variation of population which has taken place since the
last census; but he trusted it would not be thought necessary to do this
before the proposed tax was assessed. The carrying a law of this kind
into effect, let it be done in whatever way may be adopted, would be
found a tedious business, and the amount to be produced by it, would
have to be anticipated by loans; and if a new census was to be taken
before the tax could be assessed, it could not be said, with any kind of
certainty, when an effectual revenue was to be raised. He hoped,
therefore, when so great an inconvenience would be incurred by delaying
the tax until a new census was taken, that, though for one year some of
the States would have to pay a little more than was justly their
portion, they would consent to do so rather than subject the country to
so great an inconvenience as would be experienced by such a delay.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS supposed, if the amendment obtained, the tax must be
apportioned according to a new census; and, if so, he apprehended the
resolution would be disagreed to. Though a new census might be taken
within the ten years, he believed that term ought to be nearly expired
before a census was renewed. It was true that some of the States are
greatly increased in population; but it could not be supposed that
States increased in riches in proportion to their increase of
inhabitants, as the people who emigrate are mostly persons of little
property, who settle upon the back lands. This being the case, he
thought it was a wise provision of the constitution which directs that
the census shall be taken only once in ten years. If these words were
struck out, no tax ought to be laid until the time comes for taking the
new census.

Mr. BAYARD would not be in favor of striking out these words, if he
thought it would prevent the collection of the tax; but it would be
necessary, before the tax could be laid, that an assessment of lands,
houses, and slaves, should be made, and he could not see why the number
of inhabitants could not be ascertained at the same time.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS wished to know whether the new census proposed to be
taken was to affect the representation as well as the tax?

Mr. DAYTON answered in the affirmative. The return of the enumeration of
the inhabitants, he said, might be made at the first meeting of the next
Congress, by which means the number of Representatives to which each
State will then be entitled might be ascertained in time for the
succeeding election. If the order was not made at this session for
taking a new census, the enumeration could not be returned before the
last session of next Congress, which would be too late for the election
of the following Congress.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, it would be better for the mover of this amendment,
and others who wished to have this tax collected, to suffer the
resolution to stand as at present, so that the tax might be immediately
assessed by law, and provide at the same time for taking a new census,
which no one would object to; and, if it could hereafter be shown that
the new census could be taken without prolonging the collection of the
tax, it might be done; if not, the tax must be laid according to the
present census. The best way would be to strike out the resolution
altogether, and then make a provision for taking a new census.

Mr. DAYTON consented to vary his motion so as to meet the ideas of the
gentleman last up, by adding after the word "that," in the first line,
"until a new census shall be taken," and to the end of the resolution
these words: "and that provision ought to be immediately made by law for
taking a census of the inhabitants of the several States, agreeably to
the constitution."

Mr. GALLATIN believed this amendment consisted of two parts; he
therefore called for a division of it. He should vote in favor of the
first. The other part he thought perfectly a distinct subject, and not
at present under consideration. If a new census was to be directed to be
taken, he thought it ought to be done in a separate bill, and not
entangled with this subject.

The question on the first part of the amendment was put and carried,
without a division.

On the second, some observations were made, chiefly expressive of a wish
to have the provision for a new census separate from the present
subject; after which the question was put upon it, and carried, 39 to
29.

The committee then rose, and reported the amendments to the resolutions
as agreed to; which being confirmed by the House,

Mr. D. FOSTER moved to strike out the word "annually" in the first
resolution.

Mr. GALLATIN was in favor of the motion. It was his intention to have
made some general observations on this subject whilst under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole; but whilst he was putting
down some figures on paper, the question was taken; as they would be
equally applicable, he should now make them. They would go to show that
this tax was not wanted as a permanent revenue, but solely to meet the
present exigencies. He should show that the present revenues of the
Union are sufficient to meet the current expenses, and to meet the
instalments of deferred and Dutch debt due after the year 1801.

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury states that it is probable
there will be a deficiency of $1,796,705; but supposing that, from the
present situation of the country, our expenses may be greatly increased,
and our revenue defalcate, the certainty of a great augmentation in the
ordinary expenses by the deferred debt, and the increasing instalments
of the foreign debt, the Committee of Ways and Means do not think it
safe to contemplate an additional revenue from permanent sources of
taxation to a less amount than two millions of dollars.

In looking into the statements of the Secretary of the Treasury, it
would be found that most of the objects of expense brought forward to
show the necessity of a permanent tax are of a temporary nature. He has
estimated the expenditures for the year 1798 to be $6,926,460; in order
to ascertain what will be the permanent expenditures of the Union after
the year 1800, it is necessary in the first place to deduct from the sum
those items which are not of a permanent nature; and, as he would add a
sum for the Dutch debt due after 1801, Mr. G. said he would also deduct
the instalment of $80,030 due for the present year. The first item of a
temporary nature was a sum reported for deficiencies in the Military
Establishment of $164,000. Every gentleman who had attended to this
subject, when it was lately before the House, must be convinced that
sufficient sums had been appropriated under this head, and that
deficiencies must be considered as extraordinaries not likely again to
occur. Second, $103,000 were set down for diplomatic expenses; the
permanent establishment was now fixed at $63,000, and $40,000,
therefore, were a temporary expense. Finally, the following items were
stated by the Secretary himself as temporary, viz: for light-houses, in
addition to the usual appropriation, for expenses incident to the
treaties with Great Britain and Spain, and for reimbursing the unfunded
and registered debts, and for the payment of old accounts, a sum of
$546,000. The last item not yet agreed to by this House. These several
articles amount to about $830,000, which, deducted from the expense of
1798, as calculated by the Secretary of the Treasury, will leave a
balance of about $6,100,000 for the permanent ordinary expenses, civil,
military, contingent, and relative to the present debt. To this must be
added $1,146,370 for the interest and extinguishing annuity of the
deferred debt, payable in 1801, and also the sum necessary to pay the
principal of the Dutch debt after that year. The Committee of Ways and
Means have reported the foreign debt which will become due in 1802, 1803
and 1804; but, by taking the aggregate of all the years, it will be
found that an average sum of $800,000 a year will pay the whole of that
debt in twelve years. This last item, the $1,146,000 for the deferred
debt, and the $6,100,000 for ordinary expenses, makes the aggregate of
$8,046,000 for the permanent expenditures of the Union after the year
1801, including provision for paying the whole of the principal of the
foreign six per cent, and deferred debt according to contract.

This, in time of peace, would be the extent of our expenses, especially
as there are a number of items which might be reduced, and in that
calculation no reduction is introduced in the Naval, Military, or
Diplomatic Departments, or in the Civil List. If the current revenue be
examined, it will be found to exceed this amount. The amount of revenue,
as calculated by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the present year, is
$8,011,897. But to this must be added the deduction of $549,649, which
he has made from the duties on imposts and tonnage, from an apprehension
of a defalcation in this part of the revenue, on account of capture, and
which was of course to be considered as temporary. To this there should
also be added the duty on salt, laid at the last session, which could
not make any part of this estimate. That duty was eight cents per
bushel, and calculating the quantity of salt imported at three millions
of bushels, it will amount to about $250,000. There was also a number of
additional duties, laid during the last session of the last Congress,
which would not raise less than $350,000, viz: two and-a-half per cent,
on all white cotton goods imported, and an additional duty on tea, brown
sugar, and molasses. These two sums make $600,000, and added to the
above $500,000, deducted this year on account of captures, would make
the permanent revenue, in time of peace, equal to $9,111,897, which
would exceed our expenses by $1,000,000. This is clear from the papers
before the committee. It was suggested that some of his deductions for
expenses were improper, or that he might be mistaken in his expectations
of revenue on some items, yet this surplus million, which was equal to
one-eighth of the whole expenditure, would certainly cover any mistakes
of that kind. Besides, there is every reason to believe some of the
branches of the revenue will be more productive, on account of the
increase of population in 1801, than now. Mr. G., therefore, agreed with
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. VARNUM) that the present revenues
of the nation are equal to all its expenditures, including therein the
redemption of the public debt, except in case of war. The gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. SMITH) seemed to be of the same opinion, and, indeed, the
Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means had formerly made a similar
declaration. It would, therefore, be improper to vote a permanent tax,
when the objects for which it was wanted were not of a permanent nature.

Two years ago, Mr. G. said, he was in favor of a permanent land tax, as
he then thought it would be wanted to meet the demands which would come
against the Government in the year 1801. He was of that opinion, because
he did not wish to see the list of indirect taxes swelled beyond what it
was; but Congress were of a different opinion, and had, since that time,
laid indirect taxes on salt, sugar, stamps, &c., to the amount of
$800,000 a year, and have so far diminished the necessity of a direct
tax.

There was another thing in which he had been agreeably disappointed. The
mistake was common to almost every individual, as well as to himself. It
was in relation to the amount of duties which would probably arise from
imposts and tonnage, and which were productive beyond the most sanguine
expectations. The estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury then fell
short of the real amount by upwards of a million of dollars, and the
same thing had taken place last year. If, however, in the year 1801, a
diminution should take place in the product of those duties, the land
tax might then be made permanent.

Mr. G. concluded by saying the tax of two millions was already agreed to
for one year, though he thought it too large a sum. He could see no
objection to its being made an annual tax as in Great Britain, as it
could not be doubted that if the money was wanted for another year, the
act would be annually renewed.

Mr. HARPER confessed himself very much alarmed at this motion. He saw in
it, and in the arguments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania in support
of it, the second leaf of the book for keeping this country in an
utterly defenceless state--and another attempt made to render those
measures which had been taken nugatory, by effectually tying our hands;
and therefore it was that he saw this motion made with grief and
astonishment, by his friend from Massachusetts, whose motives he could
not suspect.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, said Mr. H., reasons as if we were in a
state of profound peace, and as if we had nothing to apprehend from
abroad; as if all our disputes were settled, and we had nothing to do
but pay the expense of the preparations of defence gone into, and then
at all future times we should rest in security. This was the basis of
his speech, and he could not entertain so low an opinion of his
understanding as to believe he thought it a good one. That gentleman
must know, every one must know, that this country is not in a settled
state of things, but that we are threatened, and speedily, with a war.
No longer ago than yesterday the House was informed that our Ministers
had presented their final memorial, and that if they did not soon
receive an answer to it, they should give up their mission and return
home. Far from desisting from her attacks upon our commerce, France goes
on increasing them. Her former violations of right have been greatly
increased. They had been told by the papers on the table of the
subjugation of our country, of the fate of Venice and of Hamburgh. She
talks of sending frigates against us, of ravaging our coasts; she has
spoken of internal divisions, of a party in this country on which she
can rely. We had heard, though not officially, that orders had been
issued for taking all our vessels, and executing our citizens as
pirates, yet gentlemen sit down with counting-house exactness to
calculate the amount which it will take to defend ourselves. This was,
however, perfectly consistent with the rest of the conduct of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, because he has constantly set his face
against every measure of effectual defence, though he has constantly
talked of being willing to concur in what he considered measures of
defence.

But will the House thus be acted upon? He trusted not. He could not
relinquish the pleasing persuasion that a majority of this House is
determined to defend this country against a foreign foe, that they are
desirous of protecting their property, their wives, and their children,
and that they will rend from their eyes the veil which the gentleman
from Pennsylvania has endeavored to cast over them. That they will
defend themselves against a foe who relies upon our weakness, upon our
calculations of avarice, upon the exertions of men among us who are to
paralyze all our efforts to defend ourselves, and upon a prostrate
colonial spirit in this country. The existence of this spirit would be
confirmed were the present motion adopted. Why? Because the complete
defence of the country is not to be effected by two millions of dollars.
Mr. H. recapitulated what had been done by way of defence; but said
these amounted to nothing, they were only measures of precaution a
commencement of defence, and if those events take place which all think
probable, a much larger sum of money will be wanted. Mr. H. said it
would be seen, by the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, that
they did not take into view the expense which might be incurred for the
military defence of the country, either by a provisional army, or by
detachments of militia. And would any one say that it would be proper to
rise without providing a military defence for the country? Or could they
say that no part of the 80,000 militia, ordered to be held in readiness,
would not be called into service? Or would it be proper to sit down,
satisfied that our enemy will not invade us, though they see we are not
prepared to meet them? He hoped not.

Mr. OTIS wished to inquire of his colleague, before he proceeded to make
any observations, whether he would consent to withdraw his motion, and
admit of another in its place; but as he did not see him in his place,
he would state what his proposition was. He supposed it was the object
of his colleague to prevent the tax from being permanent. He knew that
gentleman too well to believe he wished to render the tax futile. He
proposed, therefore, instead of this amendment, to retain the word
"annually," and to add "until all loans that may be authorized by law on
the credit of such tax be reimbursed."

Soon after the late despatches from our Ministers were read to this
House, and the common sense of the community was convinced of the
necessity there was for immediately going into measures of defence,
speaking of the agreeable unanimity which seemed to prevail in the
House, it was prophesied to him, by men who had been much longer in this
body than himself, that, notwithstanding all this appearance, yet
certain gentlemen in the House would take care so to embarrass the
detail of the business, that they might just as well have refused to
assent to the principle. [Mr. DANA hoped these remarks were not meant to
apply to the mover of the present proposition.] Mr. O. said he felt some
difficulty in speaking on this subject, from the motion coming from the
quarter whence it came; but he trusted his friend would not apply these
remarks to himself. [Mr. VENABLE hoped the gentleman did not mean to
insinuate that any gentleman was actuated by improper motives. The
SPEAKER said it was improper to speak of motives.] Mr. O. added, that
his object was to show that the opposition made to this tax would have
nearly the same effect as voting against it in the first instance; for
he doubted whether a shilling could be got upon it, if passed in this
way. Perhaps many wish that this should be the case; they may think the
money is not wanted. If there was any wisdom in thus acting, he could
not see it, and therefore could not give gentlemen that credit for their
actions which they may think they deserve. Mr. O. expressed his
astonishment that gentlemen who were two or three years ago in favor of
a land tax, should now be wholly opposed to it. He also added that he
had heard another prophecy, which was that many gentlemen who were
always averse to a land tax would not now agree to it, but attempt to
defeat it, however willing they were to go into measures of defence for
the country, when those measures were unconnected with the raising of
money. He hoped this would not come true.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS observed, it was a fortunate circumstance that the
present motion was made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, though,
even that circumstance could not secure gentlemen from abuse; for though
his friends cannot but allow the mover's motives are pure, yet they have
imputed the worst views to those who support it.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) has, as is usual with
him, consumed one-half of his speech in censuring the conduct of members
of this House, because they do not agree with him in opinion as to what
is the proper defence of this country, and in recounting what France has
done in Europe.

As to what that gentleman had said with respect to motives, he believed
every gentleman had a right to deliver his sentiments freely, without
being subject to the lash of that gentleman, or any other. How could it
be fairly argued, because gentlemen desired to limit the duration of
this law, that they were unwilling to defend their country? No such
conclusion could be drawn. He believed the people of this country would
always be found ready to defend themselves, as far as their own
interests and the interests of the country required; but not to defend
other nations. The gentleman from South Carolina never spoke on the
subject of defence, but he went into Europe, to tell the House what was
going on there. He thought enough had been said on this subject.

The gentleman had talked much of national honor and national dignity;
but he wished him to recollect that national honor and national dignity
were national interest. But the dignity and honor, which were too often
spoken of, were mere phantoms; and what is looked upon as disgraceful in
one country, may be looked upon as honorable in another. But the dignity
and honor which he spoke of were the same in all countries; they were
the interest of the people. He believed that some gentlemen would even
account it honorable to go into Europe, and endeavor to raise up all the
crowned heads which had fallen in the course of the present war. He
liked no such honor.

The gentleman from South Carolina has not only to-day, but often,
reprobated the idea of introducing calculation into our debates when
measures of defence have been under consideration; whereas it appeared
to himself the true ground upon which they ought to act. He believed, if
nations in general were to sit down and count the cost before they went
to war, one-half the blood and treasure which are now caused to flow,
would in such case be spared. Wherever a nation was about to enter into
a war to support its rights without its jurisdiction, it was perfectly
right to sit down and calculate the expense of doing it; he agreed,
when a country was attacked upon its own territory, that was not the
time to talk about expense. It appeared to him, in such a situation, our
defence would not so much consist of money as of individual exertion. In
his opinion, free men fought for liberty, and slaves for money.

The House was told, that if this money was not wanted, it would be safe
in the Treasury, or applied to the reduction of the public debt; but he
believed it would not be in the power of the gentleman from South
Carolina to convince him, or the people of this country, that the money
will not remain as safe in the pockets of the people, until it is
wanted, as in the Treasury. He believed the willingness of the people to
give the money when it is wanted cannot be questioned; and if that
gentleman had all the reliance upon the people which he pretends to
have, he would not wish to take their money when he was not certain it
would be wanted.

As to our late despatches, containing the conversations of X, Y, and Z,
which gentlemen seemed so much to rely upon, he confessed his opinions
had not been at all changed by them. He believed, before they were
communicated, that this country had been greatly injured by France, and
he was not ready to take any step now that he was not ready to take
before. He believed that he, and others who voted with him, should be as
willing to defend the country, in case of danger, as those gentlemen who
are continually raising up military phantoms for the purpose of knocking
them down again. He hoped the amendment would be agreed to.

A motion was made and carried to adjourn, without the question being
taken.


MONDAY, May 7.

_Presents to Ministers._

Mr. PINCKNEY said, he rose to request leave to withdraw the resolution
which had yesterday been laid upon the table by his colleague, Mr.
HARPER, without his knowledge, respecting a business which had already
been decided relative to himself, as it was founded upon a ground which
was at least doubtful, and he thought out of order.

The SPEAKER interrupted Mr. P. to say that he would save him the trouble
of any farther observations, by saying that he deemed the motion out of
order.

Mr. PINCKNEY hoped, notwithstanding, he should be permitted to make a
few remarks on the subject.

The SPEAKER replied, that any remarks upon a business already decided
would not be in order, and could not be admitted without general
consent. A pretty general cry of "I hope the gentleman will be permitted
to proceed," being heard, Mr. PINCKNEY went on.

He said, it was with reluctance he took up the time of the House a
moment in a matter relating to himself, particularly at present, when so
much important business pressed for consideration; but he wished to
state his reasons for wishing this motion to be withdrawn, lest it
should seem to have been brought forward by his consent. He was grateful
for the good intentions of his colleague, because he doubtless thought
the vote which had passed on the preceding day might cast some
imputation upon his, Mr. P.'s, character. But he also wished it to be
withdrawn, because it was founded on at least a doubtful suggestion,
viz: that it is not customary for the United States to make presents to
foreign Ministers leaving this country. He believed it was customary to
do so. But another reason for wishing it to be withdrawn was, that the
discussion of it might not subject him to a species of trial as to his
public conduct, in which he should not be at liberty to make his
defence. He should never shrink from any authorized investigation of his
conduct; but he should wish to avoid any unauthorized proceeding of that
kind.

But his principal reason for troubling the House was to assign his
reasons for addressing a letter to Congress on this subject, apparently
of so trifling a nature. With respect to the present offered to him by
the Court of Spain, it would have been improper for him, under any
construction of the constitution, to have received it, as he was at that
time also Minister to Great Britain. Upon this ground it was that he
wrote to the Spanish Minister declining the acceptance of the present
offered to him from that Court, except he should obtain leave of
Congress to do so. This being the case, whatever might have been the
propriety of accepting of the present offered to him by the Court of
Great Britain, there would have been at least an appearance of
inconsistency to have received a present from one Court and not from the
other. He therefore gave the same answer to both.

This he hoped would account satisfactorily for having troubled Congress
with any application on this subject. It was from a respect which he
thought due to the Court of Spain, from the favorable treatment he had
received from them, and being fully satisfied with all their conduct
towards him, that he thought it proper to make the application. The
other, respecting Great Britain, was involved with it.

Mr. P. said, he did apprehend there would have been a propriety in this
House, at the time they rejected the resolution sent from the Senate, to
have assigned a reason why they did so. He would say why he thought so.
He thought the constitution expressly allows, that, in some cases,
presents may be received from a foreign power, but that the power of
deciding upon this shall be left in the hands of the Legislature, as a
check upon officers that they may not improperly receive any presents
from a foreign power. But, considering this power to have been intended
as a check upon the improper conduct of officers, it must strike the
minds of the public when they are told that an officer was refused this
privilege, that he had not done his duty, especially if the refusal was
unqualified, and unaccompanied with any reason for the refusal, and that
the refusal was intended as a censure upon his conduct.

It was in this point of view, that he conceived the conduct of the
person to whom this privilege was refused, was implicated, without an
opportunity of being heard in his defence. He should be far from wishing
any resolution to be entered into approving of his conduct; but there
was a great distinction between approving and disapproving; between
censure and applause; and although he did not desire applause, he could
have wished to have avoided censure. All that he wished had been done
was, that the House should have stated something of this kind, "deeming
it improper that the diplomatic agents of the United States should
receive a present from any foreign Prince or State, the request cannot
be complied with;" as, without this, the natural inference must be, that
there has been some misbehavior in the officer, or the usual privilege
would not have been refused. He called it usual, because whenever it had
heretofore been applied for, it had been invariably granted, and the
rejection of the resolution from the Senate, must, therefore, be looked
upon as establishing an imputation upon his character. It was saying to
the world, "Every other person in a similar situation, has been
permitted to accept of these presents, but you, and you alone are an
exception; you cannot receive them." Such a person may have been worthy
of condemnation; he may have betrayed the interest of his country; but
it was injustice to that person to condemn him without a trial.

Mr. P. said, he thought it necessary, in justice to himself, to make
these observations before the House, from a regard which he felt, in
common with other gentlemen, for his reputation--more particularly as
this matter would appear upon the journals of the House, and might not
only reflect upon himself, but upon his children after him; they might
be pointed at by the finger of scorn, as the offspring of a man who had
betrayed the interests of his country. It was under the impression of
these ideas that he had been led to trouble the House, and he trusted he
should stand excused for having done so.

Mr. MCDOWELL rose, but was prevented from speaking by the SPEAKER, who
declared that nothing more could be admitted on a subject which was not
before the House.

Mr. HARPER rose. He was also checked by the SPEAKER, but not before he
had declared he brought forward the motion in question without the
knowledge of his colleague.


_Additional Revenue._

The House then proceeded to the order of the day, when the SPEAKER
having stated the question to be to strike out the word _annually_ in
the first resolution,

Mr. D. FOSTER rose, and observed that, for a justification of himself to
those who knew him, he need not declare that the motion, which had
caused so much agitation, was made with good intentions; that it was not
designed to embarrass the measures of Government, or with a view to
prevent a provision of revenue adequate to the present or probable
future exigencies; or from any reluctance on his part to concur in every
measure requisite for an effectual defence of our country. To the
uniform tenor of his conduct, on all occasions, since he had the honor
of a seat in this House, he would cheerfully appeal. Those with whom he
associated knew that nothing was more dear to his heart than the honor,
the dignity, the liberty, and the independence of his country. He did
not, therefore, consider many of the remarks which had been made on this
subject, as applicable to himself, nor should he take any measures
whatever to repel them. If his friends intended he should make a
personal application, their object was lost. Alike indifferent to
censure as applause, when unmerited, he had ever done, and, as far as he
could be informed, he would continue to do, what, at the time, appeared
to be his duty.

He was as deeply impressed as any gentleman of this House could be, with
a sense of the necessity and importance of sufficient and productive
sources of revenue. Measures for defence must be expensive; without the
means to carry them into effect, all our acts and resolutions are vain
and futile.

Protection to our commerce, defence to our frontiers and sea-coasts,
security to our rights as a nation, energy and respectability to the
operations of Government, are not to be obtained without money, and if
the present revenues are not sufficient, more must undoubtedly be
provided.

Although he did not mean to pledge himself that he would vote for it, he
should be glad to see a bill before the House, that opportunity might be
given to examine the subject in detail. Since the motion he had
submitted had been thought so exceptionable, he was willing for the
present to modify it. If gentlemen would concur with him in a
substitute, he would withdraw the motion to strike out the word
"annually," and propose to add, as an amendment at the end of the
resolution, the following words:

      "To be collected for a term not exceeding -- years;
      provided the Legislature of the United States shall at all
      times be at full liberty to substitute other duties or
      taxes of equal value in lieu thereof, for the purpose of
      discharging any debts or loans which may be contracted on
      the credit of said tax."

Mr. HARPER rose to second the motion, because it concurred with his
ideas on the subject, that the revenues ought to be commensurate with
the debts incurred. He need not repeat, he said, that he had always been
opposed to a land tax, except in the case of a war, or of preparation
for war; but he now believed it necessary.

Mr. MACON hoped this motion would not prevail. In the State from which
he came, they had an annual land tax, and found no inconvenience from
its being annual. He had no idea of a permanent tax on land, as all the
State Governments collected their revenues from this source, or from a
capitation tax, every other object having been seized upon by the United
States. The idea of the tax being laid for a number of years, would make
it more unpopular than any thing else. All our revenue laws are
temporary. But it was said it was necessary that this tax should be
permanent, in order to obtain loans upon it. He believed loans might
very well be obtained upon it, though it were passed annually; for
certainly those who loaned the Government money would have so much
confidence in it as to believe that it would pay all its contracts
fairly and honorably. He did not believe that all the money appropriated
could be expended before the next session of Congress. Besides, there is
a surplus million in the Treasury, ready for any purpose which the
Executive may think proper to apply it to.

But it had been said, advantage ought to be taken of the present moment
to get this tax. The same thing was said with respect to the Navy. He
did not think it necessary to take advantage of the present enthusiasm
of the people to collect a tax; the people would always obey the laws.

Mr. FINDLAY said, it was admitted, on all hands, that it depended on a
contingency whether this tax would be wanted at all. For his own part he
was under no apprehension of any formidable invasion of this country
taking place before Congress meets again. If France is desirous of
making conquests, there are more preferable objects to this country
nearer home. The difficulties which have so long agitated Europe are not
yet so far settled as to suffer France to send out any formidable force
here. Let the conduct of the French Government have been as bad as it
can be painted, it cannot be said that it has ever wholly lost sight of
its own interest, and it would not be her interest to make an invasion
of this country at this time; and, therefore, there is no necessity for
going into measures as if an invading army was immediately expected
amongst us.

A land tax was with him a favorite tax. He had long wished it. He was
for adopting it some time ago, and for taking advantage of a low market,
to bring up the public debt. But when he came to inquire into the
subject, he found that many of the States had laid direct taxes for the
support of their own Government. There is now an appearance of necessity
for this tax; but being a new tax under the General Government, and not
likely to be very satisfactory to some parts of the Union, it would be
proper to make the law of short duration. Upon constitutional ground he
was against continuing a direct tax longer than two years; every
Congress ought to pass a vote upon it; but, in the present instance, he
believed the law would be best if passed for one year.

Mr. F. concluded by observing, that if this law was passed for one
year, he could confidently rely on future Congresses to renew it, if the
situation of the country should require it. It would not hereafter be
convenient for him to take any farther share in the public councils, but
he should not distrust the wisdom and patriotism of those who might
follow him; and to do away the charges continually made against himself
and others, that they were not willing to defend the country, he should
call the yeas and nays upon every question of defence which came before
the House.

Mr. S. SMITH did not like the amendment; but he should vote for it,
because, if he could not get all he wished, he would get all he could.
If the blank was to be filled with two or three years, (as had been
intimated,) it would not go far enough to induce moneyed men to rely
upon it as a permanent security.

There seemed to be no difference of opinion as to the propriety of
laying a direct tax; it only seemed to be as to the length of time which
it ought to be laid. He agreed with those gentlemen who assert that
money cannot be borrowed, except a permanent fund be provided. But
gentlemen say, where are your expenses? Certain expenses have been
agreed to, which are proposed to be met by a direct tax of two millions;
but could it be supposed that the proceeds of this tax could be brought
into the Treasury in less than eighteen months? They could not, and
something must be done in the mean time to raise the money already
voted, whether any war takes place or not. How was this to be done? By
loans alone. But what inducement will there be to moneyed men to lend
money, except a permanent revenue be made the security? You hold out the
credit of the United States, which has not heretofore been injured. This
is true. But heretofore we have not been engaged in war; we have had
nothing to impede our revenue. But if a war takes place, it is possible
our revenue may suffer very materially; and Congress are about to
provide a fund which, in the opinion of some, will leave no permanency,
and in the opinion of others, very little. And would it not require a
great degree of patriotism in gentlemen to lend twenty shillings for
twenty shillings, when they can go into the market and purchase them
with sixteen. The difference of opinion on this subject, he was
convinced, arose from the different pursuits of the members of that
House. Certain gentlemen believed moneyed men would advance money
without a permanent tax as a security. He believed the contrary; for,
however great a confidence they may have in the honor of future
Congresses, they would wish to see this Congress do something for their
security. He feared gentlemen were not in earnest when they spoke of
defending the country. We have men, said he, but we want money. He did
not agree with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. WILLIAMS) that
slaves fought for money, and freemen only for liberty. If he commanded a
regiment of militia, he believed they would expect to be paid, and he
could not believe he would term them slaves. Money must be had.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania was afraid of making the revenue
permanent, because, as our revenue increased, it had been usual, not to
repeal our revenue laws, but to increase our expenses. Whence did he
collect this information? Not from the documents on the table; for there
he would find that there was an unexpended surplus of one million nine
hundred thousand dollars, which were in 1797 applied by the
Commissioners of the Sinking Fund to the reduction of the public debt.
We have, said he, gone on decreasing our expenses. It was true, that our
dispute with Algiers, and a war with the Indians, had cost a great deal
of money; but when the war with the latter was at an end our expenses
were decreased. And now an income of expense is asked for to repel
threatened danger, and gentlemen have voted measures of defence; but now
they come to touch the expense, they flinch. Men may moralize and talk
about defence as much as they please, it will avail nothing without
money.

Mr. VARNUM hoped the motion under consideration would be negatived. The
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) gave two reasons on Saturday
against striking out the word annually. One was, that it was necessary
the tax should have some permanency, in order that money might be
borrowed upon it; and another, that it might be a substitute for
indirect taxes. That gentleman allowed, and he perfectly agreed with him
in opinion, that in case of war, the defalcation in our revenue, he did
not suppose, would be large, and that in our present situation he had no
idea of a defalcation. If, then, a defalcation of our revenue was not to
be expected, he thought he should be able to make it appear that the
proposed tax is not necessary at all; and, of course, that it will not
be right to pass it for more than one year. But the gentleman from
Maryland says the people ought to be relieved from indirect taxes,
because, for every 12-1/2 per cent. duty, the consumer pays 27-1/2. Does
that gentleman wish, then, that the merchant should be deprived of a
profit of 15 per cent. on the duties which he now pays? If so, this
might be very well effected, without doing away the duty, and
substituting a land tax in its place, by the merchants lowering the
price of their goods 15 per cent.

But the gentleman added another reason for passing the law for a number
of years, viz: that this tax might be at any time repealed. But,
although this House might consent to a repeal of this tax, it was by no
means certain that the other House would consent to its repeal. Indeed,
it was his opinion, that if this tax was established as a permanent tax,
that the people of this country would not be relieved from it for many
years. Many objects, he had no doubt, would be found out by gentlemen,
ever fruitful in this respect, upon which to expend any surplus which
might arise from this tax.

The gentleman from South Carolina, on Saturday, brought into view our
situation with respect to France, and our liableness to an attack from
that nation. He alluded to the conversation which took place between our
Envoys and X, Y, and Z, and thence inferred that it was probable that
this country would be attacked by France. He could not say that all the
propositions made by these unauthorized persons were not from the
Directory; but there was no evidence of this, and therefore he could not
believe it, especially as the agents themselves declared they were not.
He thought, therefore, if we wished to preserve peace with France, that
we ought not to be too forward in believing all which was said by X, Y,
and Z, was authorized by the French Government. He hoped it would prove
to be the contrary, and that when the Directory shall discover what has
been done, they will punish these persons for their conduct.

The question was put and negatived--46 to 35.

Mr. D. FOSTER then renewed his motion to strike out the word "annually,"
which was carried, there being sixty votes for it.

The question on the amendment providing for the taking of a new census,
was put and carried, there being 57 votes for it.

Mr. READ moved an amendment, which went to strike out the provision
which proposes that the tax should be laid by a uniform rule through all
the States, with the view of inserting in its place the following words:

      "And upon such other estates within each particular State
      as are taxable according to the established rule of direct
      taxation in each State."

The motion was negatived, there being only twenty-one votes for it.

The report was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, to report
bills accordingly.


TUESDAY, May 8.

_Naturalization Law._

Mr. SEWALL called for the order of the day on the third resolution
reported from the Committee of the Whole, on the subject of aliens, and
the consideration of the following amendment being resumed, viz to add
to it these words:

      "Between which and the United States, there shall exist a
      state of declared war:"

It was agreed to; and referred to the select committee on commerce and
defence, to report a bill accordingly.

The following is the resolution as amended by the House:

      "_Resolved_, That provision be made, by law, for the
      apprehending, securing or removing, as the case may
      require, of all aliens, being males, of the age of fourteen
      years and upwards, who shall continue to reside, or shall
      arrive within the United States, being natives, citizens,
      or subjects, of any country between which and the United
      States there shall exist a state of declared war, or the
      Government of which shall threaten, attempt, or perpetrate,
      any invasion or predatory incursions upon their territory,
      as soon as may be, after the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
      shall make proclamation of such event; providing, in all
      cases where such aliens are not chargeable with actual
      hostility, that the period settled by any treaty with such
      hostile nation, or other reasonable period, according to
      the usage of nations, and the duties of humanity, shall be
      allowed, for the departure of such aliens, with all their
      effects, from the territory of the United States; and
      excepting all cases of such aliens to whom passports or
      licenses of residence may be granted, consistently with the
      public safety."


THURSDAY, May 10.

_Provisional Army._

GENERAL SUMTER'S VINDICATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA MILITIA.

This favorite scheme of raising a standing army must be pushed forward
by every aid of fact and fiction, and that its success may be insured,
the Southern members are to be terrified into its adoption, for we are
told that the Southern States have much to fear, that there is every
reason to believe the Southern States will be speedily invaded by a
merciless and vindictive foe from the West Indies. That at this moment
thousands may be disgorging on our shores; that they are prepared to
strike. And the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER, one of his
colleagues) has, in the height of his zeal for American defence, or his
fears for the safety of the Southern States, or from some other cause,
which he did not pretend to divine, by his nice and minute delineations
of the condition of the Southern States, shown to the House a terrifying
picture of Southern imbecility, and had also published to this cruel,
malicious, and insidious enemy, (as he terms them,) an enemy
sufficiently penetrating without his aid, every point, every avenue,
every position, most advantageous for them to take in attack; he has
exposed our most vulnerable parts to their inveteracy, and our
wealthiest part to their rapacity. The policy or prudence which dictated
the detail, he did not stop to examine, but went on to ask, supposing
these marauders were disposed to invade the Southern States, whether it
would not be allowed that they were too fully and completely occupied
nearer home, to be at liberty to execute at this time their intentions
of such an invasion? For his part he thought such was their condition,
and expected it would continue to be so for some time to come; but,
admitting that it is possible for the man who has been mentioned, to
invade our coast with the three or four thousand men spoken of, the
consequences predicted are not likely to follow. The reasoning of his
colleague being admitted, perhaps his conclusions might also; but the
former not being just, the latter could not result.

He was aware that the number of inhabitants of the lower country, of the
States of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, as stated by his
colleague, was not very great; but he did not consent to the deduction
which the gentleman had made, that, therefore, the lower country was
very weak in point of force to oppose an invasion. And here he deemed it
proper to notice the attempt which had been made to draw invidious
distinctions between the militia force of our country and what are
termed regulars--attempts constantly made by the advocates of standing
armies, not only on this occasion, but on many others--not only on this
floor, but in the other branch of the Legislature, and very lately, in a
pointed manner, by his colleague, (Mr. HARPER,) who pressed the
establishment of a standing army by depressing the manly character of
his fellow-citizens: he (Mr. HARPER) had said he was well acquainted
with the Southern States; that the inhabitants on the seaboard are few,
that for fifty or sixty miles they are still fewer, that the strong
population is quite remote, that the whole in general are badly armed,
many altogether without arms; that they are not well organized, and even
if they were, they are not to be depended upon, unless headed and aided
by regular troops; in short, that no good can be expected from the
militia, unless they are supported by regulars.

It is an unpleasant thing, said Mr. S., for me to have to make any
remarks on a subject of this sort; but so frequently have gentlemen made
invidious distinctions between the courage and efficacy of militia and
regulars, and with so much injustice to the former, that I cannot permit
their assertions any longer to pass without notice. For doing this, I do
not mean to derogate from the merit of the late American regular army,
nor more particularly from that part of it which served to the
Southward, of whose condition I can better judge than of that which
served in the Middle and Eastern districts; as to them I am bold to say,
they were not inferior, under all circumstances, to any army of equal
numbers and equal opportunities which I have heard or read of in any
time or in any place; but, then, it must also be remembered, whatever
gentlemen may here say to the contrary, that the militia were as
serviceable and as successful as any regulars whatever.

He said he would take a cursory review of the services of the militia in
one of the Southern States, which would tend to support his last
declaration.

He would quote only a few cases out of a great number where the militia
had acted alone, without any co-operation or support from the regulars,
and that against the veteran and conquering cavalry and infantry of
British corps, and in which actions they were distinguished for their
bravery and success. It may be remembered that very partial, if any,
impressions had ever been made by our regular troops on the British
corps of cavalry during the early period of war; and it seemed to be
reserved to the Southern militia to convince them that their equals
existed in our country. It is not to be attributed to the want of
courage or discipline in our regular corps that this had not been done
before, but to imperious circumstances which no skill could overcome;
but this did not change the fact.

After the fall of Charleston in 1780, the first action, and that fought
by the militia, without any aid from our regulars, was the action of
Fishing Creek, where, without entering into a minute description of all
the circumstances attendant on such an occasion, it will be sufficient
to say, that the gallant Captain Rooke, who commanded a squadron of
Tarleton's legion, fell, and the whole force was beaten and dispersed.

A few days after--and here permit me, said Mr. S., to remark, that if my
colleague does not remember, and our historians have neglected to record
the achievements of the militia, yet justice is in some degree done them
by a British historian, who was an officer in the British service in
that part of our country, and at the very time I am speaking of, who
corroborates my facts--a few days after an attack was made by the
militia on Rocky Mount, and Colonel Turnbull, who commanded the enemy's
force, and who is now in New York, I have no doubt has candor enough to
acknowledge, that from the contest he had with them, (although strongly
defended by well constructed works,) and which lasted ten hours, there
is something due to their bravery and the effect of their arms.

Eight days after the affair on Rocky Mount, an attack was made on the
British at their posts of the Hanging Rock. The force on this occasion
consisted of the same corps of South Carolina militia who had
enterprised on the other occasion; they were in number about 600; they
had been joined by a few of the militia from North Carolina, and it is a
pleasure to reflect on the cordiality and bravery displayed by them on
this occasion.

The enemy's force at this post was 1,200 effectives; yet the result was,
after an action which lasted through the greatest part of the day, that
Major Bryan's corps was totally defeated, the Prince of Wales' regiment
exterminated, even its name has never since been recorded. Other
detachments from the 63d and 71st, under the command of Major Camden,
were also cut up, driven from their encampment with the entire loss of
baggage, &c.; and, in the course of this action, Captain Kinlaw, with a
squadron of Tarleton's legion, arrived from Rocky Mount, made a
desperate charge on the militia, was repulsed by them, and fled to
Camden, without attempting to renew the combat. In this, as well as
other actions, it ought to be remembered how many field officers, brave
captains, and other officers, as well as valuable citizens, fell, or
were wounded, while another nation had to regret in this action alone
the loss of upwards of 800 men.

Passing by a number of important and considerable conflicts which took
place between the British regulars and the Southern militia, still
unsupported by regulars of our own army, said Mr. S., I come now to
mention the attack which was made in the neighborhood of Winnesborough,
while Lord Cornwallis laid in that town, upon the South Carolina
militia, by a British regular force under Majors Wymes and McCarthy,
supported by two troops of cavalry, the whole corps drawn together and
formed for the purpose; after various charges made by the infantry and
cavalry, and after repeated repulses, the enemy was totally repelled,
their commanding officer wounded and taken, together with a number of
his corps, and the rest were dispersed.

On the return of Colonel Tarleton to Winnesborough another effort was
made, and from the number as well as the nature of the troops employed,
it was certainly intended to be effectual in driving the South Carolina
militia from that part of the country; for it was Tarleton's legion,
McCarthy's corps, and that part of the 63d, under Major Money, which
troops were led to the attack of the militia on the 20th of November;
the result of this action is known to those who do not wish to detract
from the merit of the militia. The enemy's detachment consisted of 270
legionary horse, and upwards of 400 regular infantry, with two
field-pieces; the militia were between five and six hundred, without (as
indeed they were through all the actions I have described) a single
piece of artillery. In the number of militia are included some
Georgians, who not only acquired honor to themselves from their
exertions on that day, but did honor to their country. The fate of the
British cavalry was then decided; they had been formerly unconquerable,
but after that day they were never known to be brought to act with
either energy or effect.

Knowing the ardor and firmness of the Southern militia, and not doubting
but the militia of the several States in the Union possess equal motives
for their exertions, equal spirit and activity, I cannot, said Mr. S.,
but rely on them as the natural and main support of our national
independence--a support fully effectual without a recurrence to a
standing army. These few cases, and it is stopping very short indeed of
what the merits of the Southern militia deserve, tend to show that the
charges brought against the militia generally are as unfounded as they
are cruel to their feelings; while, at the same time, they demonstrate,
that if an invasion (which is a contingency by no means likely to
happen) should actually take place, we may rely with confidence on the
manly exertions of the militia to meet the attack, and to resist every
effort, at least for such a period as until more effective aid shall be
drawn down to their support, and more permanent measures adopted.

The question for striking out twenty thousand to insert five thousand,
was put and negatived--47 to 41.

The question now returned upon striking out twenty thousand to insert
ten thousand.

Mr. N. SMITH hoped this amendment would not be agreed to. It was
contemplated, when this reduction was proposed, that the power should
be given to the PRESIDENT for three years; but it was now restricted to
the recess of Congress. He did not himself think that at present there
was any danger of an invasion, nor did he believe that imminent danger
of an invasion would exist, whilst the war continued between France and
England; but, whenever a peace shall take place between those two
powers, the question ought then to be taken whether this country ought
not immediately to go into preparations for war; and if Congress were
not in session at the time, the PRESIDENT ought to have the power of
determining this question. It will depend on several circumstances; on
what kind of peace was made; upon what ground parties stood when peace
was made; on the situation of France at the time; on what kind of men
are in power; on the situation of this country; on what is the state of
parties here at the time; what is the number of those who are opposed to
the Government; how many there are of those who wish to lull the rest to
sleep; and what is the amount of spies in the country. All these will be
important considerations to be decided at the time, and if it shall then
appear that imminent danger does exist, will twenty thousand men be too
large a number to raise? He believed not.

The question for striking out twenty thousand, and inserting ten
thousand, was put and carried, 54 votes being in favor of it.

The question next came up on agreeing to the section proposed by the
select committee, for authorizing the PRESIDENT, from time to time, as
he shall deem it necessary, to call forth in rotation such portion, not
exceeding at any one time the number of twenty thousand men, of the
detachments of the United States, authorized by the act of the 24th of
June last, as may be conveniently mustered together, and cause them to
be trained and disciplined by their proper officers, either in their
respective States, or in one corps, to be drawn from two or more
adjoining States, for a term not exceeding ----; for which time the
officers and men shall be considered as in actual service and be paid
and governed accordingly.

After some discussion, in which constitutional objections were urged
against this provision, the committee rose without taking a question
upon it, and the House adjourned till Monday.


MONDAY, May 14.

_Provisional Army._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
bill for authorizing the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to raise a
provisional army; when, the question being put on the section providing
for the calling out 20,000 militia at a time, to be trained and
disciplined, it was negatived, there being only 11 votes for it.

This section was objected to on the ground that the constitution has
placed the training and disciplining of the militia in the several
States, and that Congress had power only "to provide for calling forth
the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections,
and repel invasion; reserving to the States respectively the appointment
of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to
the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Mr. SEWALL moved to fill the blank in this section with $200,000. He
supposed $50,000 or $60,000 would be sufficient for purchasing the
accoutrements mentioned; the remaining $140,000 or $150,000 would be
ready in the Treasury in case of emergency, for the other purposes of
the act. This mode of proceeding was objected to. It was thought by some
that it would be best to appropriate only for the purchase of the
articles specified, and provide for the whole expense of carrying the
act into effect in one sum, either in this law or some other; but it was
finally carried as it stands, and the blank was filled with 200,000
dollars.

The last additional section proposed for exempting private soldiers from
arrest for debt or contract, during their term of service, was then
agreed to.


FRIDAY, May 18.

_Call of the House._

The SPEAKER informed the House that the hour was arrived at which a call
of the House was ordered to be made, and that the clerk would
accordingly proceed to the call.

The call was accordingly made, when it appeared that 92 members were
present, which, with 13 members absent on leave, and 1 sick, made up the
whole number of members.[33]


_Provisional Army._

The bill authorizing the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to raise a
Provisional Army, was read the third time; when

Mr. MCDOWELL moved to postpone the question on the passage of this bill
till Tuesday next. Information had been received from Europe, and was
entered on the Coffee-House books of this city, that our Commissioners
had been received by the Executive Directory; and that the persons who
had held authorized conversations with them on the subject of bribes,
&c., were imprisoned. He could not say that this information was true;
but, if it were, our differences with the French Republic may probably
be amicably accommodated, and there may be no necessity to pass this
bill at all. He hoped, therefore, the postponement would take place.

Mr. SEWALL should be sorry if a motion of this kind were to receive any
attention from the House. If negotiations were opened with the French
Republic, they might not very soon be concluded. What appearance would
it have to the nations of Europe, if, after all the insults and injuries
we have received from the French Republic, the moment Congress heard in
an indirect, uncertain way, that they had deigned to receive our
Ministers, they stopped their proceedings in all measures of defence. A
more unfavorable appearance, in his opinion, could not take place. It
ought to be recollected that the army proposed to be raised was a
provisional army, and would not be raised, if the contingencies therein
named, did not take place.

The question for a postponement was put and negatived; there being only
29 votes for it.

The question on the passing of the bill was then taken, and stood--yeas
51, nays 40, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James
      A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G.
      Champlin, John Chapman, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel
      W. Dana, John Dennis, George Dent, William Edmond, Thomas
      Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry
      Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William Barry
      Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas
      Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H.
      Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir,
      William Matthews, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R.
      Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Josiah Parker, John Read, John
      Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William
      Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel
      Smith, George Thatcher, Mark Thomson, Thomas Tillinghast,
      John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

      NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
      Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Thomas
      Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton,
      Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, William
      Findlay, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie,
      Andrew Gregg, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens,
      Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke,
      Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph
      McDowell, Anthony New, Thompson J. Skinner, William Smith,
      Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram
      Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
      Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.


MONDAY, May 21.

_Presents to Ministers._

Mr. BAYARD said, he had a resolution to offer to the House, which he
trusted would meet with no opposition from any quarter. It was intended
solely to explain the grounds upon which the House proceeded when they
refused to consent that Mr. Pinckney should receive the presents usually
made by foreign Courts to Ministers upon taking leave, and which had
been offered to him by the Courts of London and Madrid. He had purposely
avoided in the resolution any expression of approbation of the conduct
of Mr. Pinckney during his missions, because he perfectly knew that no
approbation of that House could add to the high sense the people of the
United States already entertained of the integrity and talents of that
gentleman; and because it did not belong to the occasion for the House
to express any opinion as to the conduct of the gentleman during the
time he was employed abroad. That the design of the resolution he had to
submit, was simply to negative an implication which possibly might be
made, that, as the constitution certainly did contemplate cases in which
Ministers might be allowed to receive presents, the House were induced,
by reasons connected with the conduct of this gentleman, to refuse the
liberty to accept the presents; whereas he was perfectly satisfied, from
the declarations of gentlemen who opposed the permission, who had all
taken occasion to testify much esteem for the character and entire
approbation of the conduct of Mr. Pinckney while in office, that their
opposition arose from principles of general policy, which led them to
think that, in no case should presents be allowed to be received. Nay,
they had said, that the purity of this gentleman's character, and the
importance of his services, furnished a happy opportunity of
establishing an invariable rule precluding the acceptance of these
presents, which no merit hereafter should induce the House to depart
from. The subject, however, was of so delicate and tender a nature, that
he conceived it a piece of justice on the part of the House to state
explicitly the grounds upon which their decision was made, in order to
preclude the possibility of any mistake as to their motives. He should
rely, therefore, with perfect confidence, that the following resolution
would be unanimously adopted:

      _Resolved_, That this House, in refusing to allow Thomas
      Pinckney, late Minister at the Court of London, and Envoy
      Extraordinary to the Court of Madrid, to receive the
      presents usually made by the said Courts to foreign
      Ministers on taking leave, were induced to such refusal
      solely by motives of general policy, and not by any view
      personal to the said Thomas Pinckney.

Mr. GRISWOLD moved the postponement of this resolution till to-morrow.

The question on postponement was put and negatived--41 to 34.

The question on agreeing to the resolution then recurred--

Mr. SEWALL had some doubts as to the propriety of the determination of
the general question, as he believed, by that determination, the House
had parted with an advantage placed in them by the constitution. He
thought the best way of settling this business would be to reconsider
that question. He knew one gentleman who had voted upon it through
mistake, and there might be several others in the same situation.

The question on agreeing to the resolution was put and carried
unanimously.


_Naturalization Law._

On motion of Mr. SEWALL, the House went into a Committee of the Whole
on the bill supplementary to, and to amend the act to establish an
uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed
on that subject.

Mr. SEWALL moved to fill the blank specifying the length of time
necessary for an alien to give notice of his intention to become a
citizen, before he can be admitted, with "five years." Carried.

The blank declaring the length of time necessary for an alien to reside
here before he can be admitted a citizen, Mr. S. moved to fill with
"fourteen years."

Mr. MCDOWELL hoped this blank would not be filled with so long a time.
The residence now required from foreigners before they can become
citizens is five years. He would not object to an increase of the length
of this term to seven years; or, if the committee thought nine better,
he would not object to it. He did not wish to discourage an emigration
to this country of respectable foreigners, by barring them from the
rights of citizenship. The policy of this country had always been
different, and he did not wish entirely to change it. When persons come
here from foreign countries, it was our interest to attach them to us,
and not always to look upon them as aliens and strangers.

The question for filling the blank with "fourteen," was put and
carried--41 to 40.

Mr. SEWALL moved a clause providing that no alien who comes from a
country at war with us, shall be admitted to citizenship while such war
continues. Agreed to.

Mr. GALLATIN wished to know whether the provisions of this act are
intended to extend to persons who were in this country previous to the
passing of the law of January, 1795, which requires a residence of five
years before an alien can become a citizen, but who have neglected to
become citizens, as well as to all those aliens who have come to the
country since January, 1795; although they may have made the declaration
by that law required three years before they can become so, of their
intention of becoming citizens of the United States. The law of January,
1795, had made an exception in favor of all aliens then in the country.

As the bill stands at present, Mr. G. said, it would have a
retrospective effect on three descriptions of persons, viz: all those
aliens who were in this country prior to the adoption of the present
Constitution of the United States, and who were not naturalized under
the State laws before the act of 1790; in the next place, it affects all
those who, under the law of 1790, might have been naturalized, and all
those who, under the law of 1795, might hereafter be naturalized,
provided they have made the necessary declaration of their intention of
becoming citizens. From the year 1795, many persons, with a view of
making themselves citizens of this country as soon as the law would
allow them, have renounced their allegiance to the countries from
whence they came, and if this bill passes in its present form, they will
for ten or twelve years to come be without citizenship in any country.
He hoped, therefore, some exception would be made in favor of the
descriptions of persons which he had named.

One reason which led him to mention this circumstance was, that there
are a great number of persons in the State of Pennsylvania, and many in
the district from whence he came, who, though they are not citizens of
the United States, really believe they are. This mistake has arisen from
(an error common to most of the districts of the United States) a belief
that an alien's being naturalized by the laws of a State Government,
since the act of 1790, made him a citizen of the United States. The
Mayor of Philadelphia, till the year 1795, admitted citizens under the
State law, who afterwards considered themselves as citizens of the
United States. He always thought that construction to be wrong--Congress
having the power to pass, and having passed an uniform naturalization
law, which, in his opinion, excluded the idea of admission to
citizenship on different terms by the individual States. But he knew the
contrary opinion till lately generally prevailed. Indeed, he knew that
at the late election in this city, the votes of respectable merchants,
who had obtained American registers for their vessels, on a presumption
of their being citizens, were refused on this ground. The same mistake
had extended to other parts of the Union. It may be said that, since the
year 1795, these persons might have gone to any of the courts and have
become citizens. In this city, and in others, he supposed persons had
generally done so; but where people are two or three hundred miles
distant from the District Court of the United States, they had not
always an opportunity of doing it, especially on account of a
construction of the act of 1795, which had prevailed in some counties of
Pennsylvania, and which made it doubtful whether any court in the State
out of the city, could administer the oath of citizenship. Mr. G.
supposed that since the year 1790, from ten to fifteen thousand
emigrants had come into the State of Pennsylvania, two-thirds of whom
believed, till lately, that they were citizens of the United States,
from their having been naturalized by the laws of that State. It has now
been discovered that they are not citizens; but since that discovery was
made, they have not had an opportunity of being admitted according to
the law of the United States. If some limited period was given to these
persons to come forward to be naturalized, and they did not become
citizens in that time, he should be willing to exclude them. He thought,
indeed, provision should be made for all these persons, but he would not
move any amendment until he had heard the opinion of the committee on
the subject. The amendment just adopted, for excluding their enemies
from citizenship, would do away any objection which could be urged
against a provision of this kind. Indeed, the persons he alluded to
generally came from the territories of the King of Great Britain, and
three-fourths of them from Ireland.

Mr. SEWALL said, this subject was before the select committee, and it
was the opinion of a majority of that committee that no exception ought
to be made, but that the bill should pass in its present form. His own
sentiments were decidedly against any alteration. As to the Irishmen
whom the gentleman from Pennsylvania has mentioned, as they have
neglected to avail themselves of the privilege of becoming citizens, he
supposed they did not place any high value upon it. They are now
permitted to hold lands; and from the present distracted state of the
country from whence they have emigrated, he did not think it would be
prudent to make them eligible to hold seats in the Government after a
residence of five years. He believed the liberty which the United States
have given in this respect heretofore has been unexampled, and it was
high time the evils which had arisen from this imprudent liberality
should be remedied. The present distracted state of the world, and the
attempts made to disturb other governments, showed the necessity of the
proposed regulations.

Mr. S. did not consider the persons who had been mentioned as laboring
under any disadvantages. Considering what they have left, and what they
receive here, their situation is vastly improved by the change which
they have made, without giving them any chance of becoming members of
our government, for they would have had little chance of becoming
members of the government which they have left. He did not suppose they
came here with a view of getting into the government, but to acquire
property, and to enjoy peace and happiness, and this they might do
independent of citizenship. As he saw no good, therefore, to be derived
to the country from admitting these persons to citizenship, but much
danger, he hoped the bill would be agreed to as reported.

Mr. GALLATIN said, if the bill was proceeded with, he would prepare an
amendment in favor of those classes of persons he had mentioned.

The bill was accordingly proceeded with; and coming to the fifth
section, where it is provided, that if an alien shall continue to reside
here, and shall refuse or neglect to make a report of his residence, and
receive a certificate thereof, he shall forfeit two dollars, _and shall
be liable to be arrested as a suspected person_--

Mr. GALLATIN moved to strike out the words printed in italic. It was
sufficient, he said, that such a person should pay a fine. It was a new
thing to punish a man by imprisonment, not for delinquency, but because
he was suspected. A conduct of this kind had been highly condemned in
another country, and he hoped it would not be adopted here.

Mr. SEWALL said, it was the intention of the committee to show the
nature of the offence of omitting to make the proper report; to show
that such omission would lay the citizens under the suspicion of not
acting openly and candidly.

Mr. SITGREAVES remarked, that if his colleague's objection only went to
the words "suspected person," his motion went too far.

The question was put and negatived--37 to 36.

Mr. GALLATIN then proposed an amendment to the following effect:

      "Provided that any alien who was resident within the
      limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States,
      before the 29th of January, 1795, and any alien who shall
      have made a declaration of his intention of becoming a
      citizen of the United States, in conformity to the
      provisions of an act establishing a uniform rule of
      naturalization, passed on that day, may be admitted to
      become citizens of the United States, according to the
      provisions of that act."

Mr. CRAIK was disposed to go much further than is proposed in this bill
in restricting aliens from becoming citizens of this country. He should
have no objection to say, that no foreigner coming into this country
after this time, shall ever become a citizen; but he believed if this
law was to have a retrospective operation on all those foreigners now
residing within the United States, who have neglected to become
citizens, it would be very unjust. There was a large class of persons,
he said, in the country from which he came, who are not naturalized
under any law, and many others who had been naturalized under the State
law; about the legality of which, as had been stated, there is much
doubt, though in Maryland and Virginia foreigners are still naturalized
by the States, notwithstanding the law of the United States.

In deciding upon this question, Mr. C. said, it would not be proper to
take into consideration emigrants from any particular country. Many of
the persons he alluded to, are Germans, and well entitled to every
privilege that can be given them, and whose neglect to become citizens
was probably owing to their ignorance of our language and laws. He
should, therefore, be in favor of this amendment, especially as far as
it respects those aliens who were in this country before the year 1795.

Mr. BAYARD said, though foreigners were prevented from becoming citizens
of the United States until they have resided fourteen years in the
country, in many of the States, they are entitled not only to vote for
filling the offices of the State Governments, but also for filling those
of the United States. Therefore, the only privilege which they are
denied, is the capacity of becoming members of the Federal Government;
which was a denial, he thought, recommended by sound policy. And he did
not see why the restriction should not extend to the aliens now within
the United States, as to those who shall hereafter come here. If aliens
residing here had any right to expect an exception, it must be on the
ground of compact. He did not, however, consider naturalization laws in
that light. Aliens cannot be considered as members of the society of
the United States; our laws are passed on the ground of our own policy,
and whatever is granted to aliens is a mere matter of favor; and, if it
is taken away, they have no right to complain. Every principle of
policy, in his opinion, required this regulation to be made general; for
he believed there were as many Jacobins and vagabonds come into the
United States during the last two years, as may come for ten years
hence; so that these very persons against whom this law was intended to
operate, will become citizens, and may be chosen into the government. He
hoped, therefore, the amendment would not be adopted.

With respect to those persons who have given notice of their intention
of renouncing their allegiance to the foreign country from whence they
came (for they do not actually renounce it until they become citizens)
it can make no difference to them, especially those referred to by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, because it is a principle of the British
law, that British subjects have not a right to alienate themselves; they
cannot renounce their allegiance to the British King. No objection,
therefore, could be had against the measures being general on that
ground.

Mr. MACON was apprehensive that gentlemen in their zeal to get at
particular persons, will go too far in this business. He agreed with
them, that, for three or four years past, people of all sorts of
politics had come to this country, from the highest aristocrat to the
greatest Jacobin; and he doubted not that persons who were very desirous
of becoming citizens, or who had any particular end to answer by it, had
availed themselves of the law. But there are persons in distant parts of
the Continent, who have never yet become citizens, perhaps from their
not being in the way of going through the ceremony, and because they had
no apprehension of the privilege being taken from them. Many had also
omitted to do it from an ignorance of our language. He hoped, therefore,
this amendment would be agreed to. If persons have given notice of their
intention to become citizens, they have complied in part with the laws;
and he did not think it would be right to put it out of their power to
comply with the other part.

Mr. SEWALL said, this amendment would comprehend those aliens who have
come here since the year 1795, though they may have made no declaration
of their intention to become citizens, as they may make the declaration
before the law passes. As to the other description of persons, he had
not the same objection to them. He agreed with the gentleman from
Delaware, that our regulations in this respect are made for our own
convenience and safety, and that no alien has a right to complain, if
these regulations should disappoint his expectations.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, this was either a question of right or expediency.
He presumed no gentleman was prepared to say any alien had acquired an
absolute and positive right in this country to citizenship at any
particular time. If not, it was a mere matter of expediency; and, when
it is considered in this light, there can be little difficulty in seeing
the danger and disadvantages which would arise from allowing foreigners
to become citizens, as heretofore, or as proposed by the present
amendment. They are too evident to be enumerated.

But it was supposed that there were a large number of individuals in
this country entitled to citizenship by the law of 1790, but who have,
nevertheless, neglected to become citizens. It was a little
extraordinary, he said, if this were so; that persons should for so long
a time have neglected to embrace a right which, it is now represented,
it would be doing them great injury to deprive them of. As to those
persons who came into the country since the law of 1795, he saw no good
reason for making an exception in their favor. As policy, safety, and
security, dictated the measure, he hoped the bill would be passed as
reported.

Mr. W. CLAIBORNE said he could not reconcile it to his feelings to vote
for the bill without the amendment proposed by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, because it would be doing a number of people whom he
represented the greatest injustice. Those people, be said, were
peculiarly situated. It was only at the last winter session that the
State of Tennessee was represented on this floor; and, at the time of
passing the naturalization law, the people of that country were not in a
situation to receive information of what was done in Congress. It need
not be a matter of surprise, therefore, if, in that frontier country,
there are many persons aliens who did not take advantage of the law of
1790. There are numbers of such who have given the strongest proofs of
attachment to the country; they have fought and bled in the service of
the United States, and are as much wedded to the Government of the
United States as any man born on American soil. If this amendment does
not prevail, it will affect many valuable citizens of the State of
Tennessee who were citizens in the year 1795, and ten years before that
time. These persons would be deprived of rights, because they were
living in a country in which there was no post road, and where, of
course, they had no newspapers to give them information of what was
going on at the seat of Government. He hoped, therefore, it would not be
agreed to.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS hoped this provision would be agreed to. When an act is
passed, good reasons, he said, ought to be given before any change takes
place. Many persons had come into this country from an expectation of
being naturalized at the end of a certain period; but, if this provision
is not agreed to, the system will be entirely changed. He saw no
difficulty which could arise from agreeing to this provision, as persons
from countries at war with this country could not be made citizens at
all. He knew a number of persons who had not taken advantage of the
naturalization law, who perhaps are as good men as any in the United
States. It was true, he said, that by the laws of the several States
aliens are allowed to hold land; but when foreigners come here to
reside, and behave well, he did not see why they ought to be prevented
from becoming citizens. They contribute their share of the expense of
government, and it was an acknowledged principle that representation and
taxation ought to go together; which would not be the case if the bill
was passed without this amendment.

The question was put and carried, there being 52 votes for it.

The committee then rose, and the House proceeded to take up the
amendments.

The amendment of Mr. GALLATIN coming again under consideration,

Mr. COIT hoped that part of the clause would be disagreed to which
embraces persons who were in this country before the year 1795, but who
had never shown any disposition to become citizens. Those who came
since, and had given notice of their intention of becoming citizens,
stand on very different ground. He should have no objection to the
latter being accepted, in the way proposed, but not the former.

After a few observations on this amendment, it was negatived--49 to 32.

Mr. SITGREAVES proposed an amendment, limiting the time within which
aliens, included in Mr. GALLATIN'S proposition, should be permitted to
avail themselves of the exception in their favor, viz: those who were in
this country before the year 1795, within one year after the passing of
this act; and those who have come here since, and given notice of their
intention to become citizens, within four years from the time of such
notice having been given.

The question was first put on the former part of the amendment.

Mr. T. CLAIBORNE did not wish to punish men for not being born here, but
to punish both natives and foreigners when guilty. He hoped two years
would be allowed instead of one.

The question on two years was put and negatived--31 to 39. It was then
put on one, and carried--57 votes being for it.

The question on the second part of the amendment was then put.

Mr. VARNUM said, the impulse of the moment led members to believe that
these restrictions upon foreigners were necessary. He thought there was
no necessity for any measures being taken with respect to foreigners,
except such as belong to the nation with whom we expect to be at war;
yet, he had no particular objection to restrictions being made with
respect to such foreigners as shall hereafter come to this country; but,
having heretofore held out inducements to foreigners to come to this
country, and when they are come, with an expectation of becoming
entitled to the rights of citizens in a certain time, he would not
disappoint those expectations.

Mr. T. CLAIBORNE said, this was a very important bill, and he should
wish a little more time to consider on it; he therefore moved an
adjournment.

The motion was put and negatived, there being only 15 votes for it.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, the observation of the gentleman from Massachusetts
could only be applicable when the principle of the bill was under
consideration; whereas, the present proposition only went to limit the
period within which advantage should be taken of the indulgence proposed
to be allowed.

Mr. VARNUM moved a division of the amendment, and proposed to allow till
the 1st of September next for persons to make a declaration of their
intention to become citizens.

This motion was not seconded; and the question on the amendment was put
and carried--47 to 31.

The bill was then ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.


TUESDAY, May 22.

_Alien Enemies._

On motion of Mr. SEWALL, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill respecting alien enemies, Mr. DENT in the chair; when the bill
was read as follows:

      SEC. 1. _Be it enacted, &c._, That whenever there shall be
      a declared war between the United States and any foreign
      nation or government, or any invasion, or predatory
      incursion, shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened,
      against the territory of the United States, by any foreign
      nation or government, and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
      STATES shall make public proclamation of the event, all
      natives, denizens, citizens, or subjects of the hostile
      nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen
      years and upwards, who shall be within the United States,
      and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be
      apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed, as alien
      enemies; and shall be further subject, with their goods and
      effects, to a just retaliation of any unusual severities,
      restraints, and confiscations, which shall be suffered by
      the citizens of the United States, resident within the
      territory of the hostile nation or government, and
      inflicted by their authority, previous to, or at the
      commencement of, any war or rupture as aforesaid, under
      color or pretence thereof. And the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
      STATES shall be, and he is hereby, authorized, in any event
      as aforesaid, by his proclamation thereof, or other public
      act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of
      the United States, towards the aliens who shall become
      liable as aforesaid; the manner and degree of the restraint
      to which they shall be subject, and in what cases and upon
      what security their residence shall be permitted, and to
      provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted
      to reside within the United States, shall refuse or neglect
      to depart therefrom, and to establish any other regulations
      which shall be found necessary in the premises, and for the
      public safety, subject, nevertheless, to the regulations
      which the Congress of the United States shall thereafter
      agree and establish.

      [The second section allows to any alien enemy who shall
      not be chargeable with actual hostility, all the time for
      the disposal of his effects, and his removal from the
      country, which any treaty with his nation may stipulate;
      and the third commits the execution of the act in relation
      to all persons comprehended in the PRESIDENT'S
      Proclamation, and to all who shall harbor them, to all the
      judicial and ministerial officers of the Federal and State
      Governments.]

The two first sections having been read, without motion for amendment,

Mr. LYON moved to strike out the word "harbor," in the third section,
which was negatived.

Mr. MACON thought the third section gave the PRESIDENT a very
extraordinary power; it seemed that his proclamation, in all cases, was
to be considered as law. He wished the chairman of the committee, who
reported the bill, to give some information on the subject.

Mr. SEWALL said, the gentleman from North Carolina seemed to suppose
that this was a general power placed in the hands of the PRESIDENT,
whereas his power is confined by the first section of the bill. This
power, Mr. S. said, must be placed somewhere, and he believed it could
not be better placed than in the PRESIDENT.

Mr. LYON saw no ground for the first section of the bill, except it was
to restrain the property of aliens to make satisfaction for the injuries
done to our own citizens; nor should he be willing to give a power to
the PRESIDENT which might enable him to distress innocent persons. He
moved, therefore, to strike out the words "or threatened," in the first
section, as he considered these words too vague to authorize the
exercise of so great a power as was here given.

Mr. MACON seconded the motion.

The question was put and negatived, 44 to 39.

Mr. HARPER moved to strike out the words "predatory incursion," in the
first section. The power, he said, was a very extensive one, and he did
not think it ought to be given except in cases of serious attack; but,
after a few words in opposition to it by Mr. SEWALL, and in favor of it
by Mr. MCDOWELL, he withdrew his motion, alleging that he had not
rightly understood the section.

Mr. BAYARD said, the last section of this bill contained a principle
contrary to all our maxims of jurisprudence, viz: to provide punishment
for a crime by a law to be passed after the fact is committed. Whether
the crime to be punished is to amount to treason, misprision of treason,
or be only a misdemeanor, is left uncertain. It was his opinion that
laws could not be too definite; but it would be impossible in this case
for the person committed to know what crime he had committed, or to what
punishment he was liable. In order to get rid of this difficulty, he
moved to strike out all the words after the word "aforesaid," at the
conclusion of the last section, and to insert in lieu thereof the
following words, viz: "shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to
a fine not exceeding ---- dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding ----
months."

Mr. SEWALL acknowledged there was a good deal of uncertainty in that
part of the bill moved to be struck out; but the select committee did
not see any way of remedying the evil without making the law too mild in
its operation. In some cases, the offence would amount to high treason,
the punishment for which is death; in others, to misprision of treason,
the punishment for which is imprisonment not exceeding seven years, and
a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars. As the offence might,
therefore, sometimes amount to high treason, there would be an
impropriety in making it uniformly a misdemeanor.

If an alien should have resided here for a number of years, and he
should turn out to have been a spy, and a citizen of the United States
should have harbored and concealed the said alien, knowing him to have
been a spy, he would be chargeable with high treason for aiding and
abetting the enemies of the United States within its territory, or at
least a misprision of treason.

But the gentleman from Delaware was mistaken in his idea that it was
intended to try an offender by a law passed after the offence was
committed. By the expression, "as by law is or shall be declared," was
only meant such law as should be passed between the present time and the
time of committing any offence.

The question on this amendment was put and carried, 44 to 25.

On motion of Mr. BAYARD, the blank for containing the amount of the
penalty, in the amendment just carried, was filled with one thousand
dollars.

The committee rose, and reported the amendments; which having been
agreed to,

Mr. DENT moved to strike out the word "months," in Mr. BAYARD'S
amendment, in order to insert "seven years."

Mr. N. SMITH hoped this amendment would not be agreed to. He believed
the penalty might, in some cases, be too severe, and in others by far
too mild. He thought the bill stood well as it was. He did not think
there was any uncertainty in it but what arose from the different
species of offence which were comprised within this provision--for a
person under it might be guilty of the highest crime, or of no crime at
all, according to the circumstances of the case. This being the
condition of things, to make an uniform punishment for all cases,
whether highly criminal, or no crime at all, cannot be proper.

The bill as it stands, without the amendment, provides that offenders
shall be imprisoned and punished according to the law which is or shall
be made, (before the offence is committed,) and he thought this was the
proper footing, as the punishment would then be apportioned according
to the offence.

Mr. BAYARD hoped the amendment would be agreed to. He did not know that
a greater misfortune could happen to any man than to live in a country
where the laws are so indefinite that a person cannot ascertain when he
commits an offence, or what is the penalty of an offence when it is
committed. The gentlemen from Massachusetts and Connecticut tell the
House about the aggravation of the offence. What was the aggravation
they allude to they have not stated, and no gentleman could form an
opinion upon the subject. The fact was of a definite nature, and a
definite punishment ought to be made for it. What is the fact? It is the
harboring and concealing of an alien enemy after the proclamation of the
PRESIDENT. Gentlemen say this offence may amount to treason, misprision
of treason, or other offence. If the offence could amount to treason, he
owned he did not understand the bill, because the crime of treason is
defined by the constitution, and could not be varied by any law of
Congress. If, then, the fact amount to treason, it will not be included
in this law. If gentlemen wished to punish persons in exact conformity
to their degree of offence, they ought to prepare a scale of offence for
that purpose. If not, the amendment agreed to in Committee of the Whole,
ought, in his opinion, to be concurred in.

Mr. SEWALL said, this bill aimed at one thing, and the gentleman from
Delaware at another. The bill has in itself a definition of the offence.
It has declared certain circumstances which shall put a person in a
situation in which he shall answer for his conduct. It declares that a
person harboring an alien enemy shall be a suspected person; but the
crime and punishment must be ascertained by other laws; and by these
offenders are to be punished agreeably to their offences, whether they
be great or small.

Mr. GALLATIN said, if he understood the gentleman from Massachusetts, it
was not the object of this bill to define the nature of the offence of
which a person shall be guilty, or the punishment for it, for harboring
and concealing an alien enemy, but only that certain circumstances
should render a man a suspected person. This to him was altogether a new
legislation.

If he understood the bill as it stood rightly, a person may be
apprehended and imprisoned on account of his having harbored and
concealed alien enemies; yet the gentleman from Massachusetts says this
is in itself no crime; for, if it were a crime, it ought to be punished
in the way proposed by the gentleman from Delaware, but he states it to
be only a sufficient ground of suspicion. This Mr. G. said, was not only
contrary to every principle of justice and reason, but to the provisions
of the constitution. The constitution says, "that no person shall be
deprived of life, limb, or property, without due process of law." But
here certain persons may be deprived of their liberty without any
process of law, or being guilty of any crime. Yet the gentleman from
Massachusetts says, that this bill does not define a crime or award a
punishment. But, Mr. G. said, this assertion was not correct; for there
was a new crime instituted, which was that of being a suspected person,
and the overt act which is to be evidence of that crime, is the
harboring and concealing of an alien enemy, and the punishment is to be
apprehension and imprisonment until it shall be found what law the
prisoner has offended.

Mr. G. said he was ready to acknowledge that where a man commits an
offence, he ought to be punished; but he could not consent to punish any
man on suspicion merely. He therefore moved to recommit the bill. He did
this because he thought the whole of the bill vague in its nature. He
wished it to be more in detail, and that the offences to be punished
should be defined; for it was remarkable that every section of the bill
concluded with these singular words: "subject nevertheless to the
regulations which the Congress of the United States shall thereafter
agree and establish." So that instead of deciding what the law should
be, it gives the PRESIDENT the power of saying what it is; subject to
the after regulations of Congress. He wished now to make the law to
declare what the offence should be, and what the punishment, and not
leave it to the PRESIDENT to make what regulations he shall think
proper. If not, the whole of the bill might as well be in two or three
words, viz: "The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall have the power to
remove, restrict, or confine alien enemies and citizens whom he may
consider as suspected persons." When Congress attempted to legislate,
they ought not to do it in this way. When the resolution was agreed to,
authorizing this bill to be reported, he expected the committee would
have defined the nature of offences and their punishments, and not
reported the bill in the vague way in which it is before the House,
especially as this appears not to be meant for a temporary, but a
permanent law.

If gentlemen examine the third section of the bill, it will be found
that all Judges, Justices, Marshals, Sheriffs, and other officers, and
all the good people of the United States, are bound to do, what? Not to
execute any law; but to carry into effect any proclamation, or other
public act of the PRESIDENT. So that instead of the Judicial, and any
other officers of the United States, and the people at large, being
obedient to the laws, they are to be obedient to the will of the
PRESIDENT.

The last clause of the bill, which does not relate to aliens, but to our
own citizens, is very objectionable. It is in the shape of a penal law,
and the crime it defines is the harboring and concealing of alien
enemies. Now it is said, that this crime may amount to high treason, by
its being construed that an offender has adhered to the enemies of the
United States, knowing them to be such, or it may be no offence at all.
But the provision is general; and a man guilty of no offence is liable
to be apprehended and imprisoned equally with the highest offender under
this law.

Upon the whole, it was evident, Mr. G. said, that this bill wants
detail, as what is left general and ambiguous, ought to be clearly
defined. He hoped, therefore, the bill would be recommitted.

Mr. SEWALL said, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, in order to bring
forward this motion, has shut his eyes to the intention of the bill. He
says it is a bill for punishing crimes which are not defined. He never
knew that alien enemies were guilty of an offence merely as such. It is
a bill to provide for the public safety in certain cases. In the event
of a war with France, all her citizens here will become alien enemies,
but neither this bill, nor common sense, would consider them as
offenders. They may be offenders, but not because they are alien
enemies; nevertheless it is necessary to provide for the public safety,
and in all countries there is a power lodged somewhere for taking
measures of this kind. In this country, this power is not lodged wholly
in the Executive; it is in Congress. Perhaps, if war was declared, the
PRESIDENT might then, as Commander-in-chief, exercise a military power
over these people; but it would be best to settle these regulations by
civil process. They would be regulated by the treaties as well as by the
laws of nations. The intention of this bill is to give the PRESIDENT the
power of judging what is proper to be done, and to limit his authority
in the way proposed by this bill. In many cases, it would be unnecessary
to remove or restrict aliens of this description; and he believed it
would be impossible for Congress to describe the cases in which aliens
or citizens ought to be punished, or not; but the PRESIDENT would be
able to determine this matter by his proclamation. If, however,
gentlemen could point out any way in which the necessary regulations
could be detailed, he should have no particular objection to it, though
he thought the bill stood very well as it was.

Mr. OTIS.--In considering this subject, the only practicable modes, he
said, which present themselves, are three. To provide for the removing
or otherwise restricting all alien enemies without distinction, or to
specify some overt acts for committing of which they shall be liable to
be removed or restricted, or else to leave the power with the PRESIDENT
to take such steps respecting them as he shall think proper and
necessary for the public safety.

Mr. O. inquired if the House was ready to do the first? He thought not.
He had no doubt there might be French citizens resident here who were
entitled to protection, who meant to become good subjects, and who ought
not to be exposed to any inconvenience or penalty whatever. He believed
very few gentlemen are of opinion that it would be proper to treat all
alien enemies in the same way. The operation of such a measure would be
unjust. Will gentlemen think it right, then, to declare that alien
enemies shall only be removed, or otherwise restricted, on conviction of
some overt act to be specified in the act? They are at present liable,
with all other persons, to be punished for crimes; so that a regulation
with this view would be unnecessary. But there may be cases where the
conduct of such persons being extremely suspicious, they ought to be
taken into custody, though no positive crime could be proved. Suppose a
French army were to land in this country, some of these persons might
show a disposition, which would warrant their imprisonment; and yet he
did not know how such dispositions could be defined in this bill.

Mr. O. believed, therefore, that it would be best to vest a
discretionary power in the Executive to secure and take care that these
men should do no injury. And this could not be looked upon as a
dangerous or exorbitant power, since the PRESIDENT would have the power,
the moment war was declared, to apprehend the whole of these people as
enemies, and make them prisoners of war. And in case of a predatory
incursion, made on this country, there might be as much reason for
securing some of them as in case of actual war or invasion. So that this
bill ought rather to be considered as an amelioration or modification
of those powers which the PRESIDENT already possesses, as
Commander-in-chief, and which the martial law would prove more rigorous
than those proposed by this new regulation. Unless gentlemen were
disposed to interfere, to suffer those men to go at large, and to carry
on a correspondence with their countrymen and our enemy; unless they
will consent to suffer a band of spies to be spread through the country,
from one end of it to the other, who, in case of the introduction of an
enemy into our country, may join them in their attack upon us, and in
their plunder of our property, nothing short of the bill like the
present can be effectual.

He was willing to say, that in a time of tranquillity, he should not
desire to put a power like this into the hands of the Executive; but, in
a time of war, the citizens of France ought to be considered and treated
and watched in a very different manner from citizens of our own country.

As to the objection made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that the
bill provides a punishment for suspected persons, and that the word
suspected was indefinite, Mr. O. asked whether men are not usually
arrested on suspicion? When information is lodged against a man for
committing an offence, he is suspected of being guilty, and imprisoned
until he can be examined.

Mr. O. believed, that, to provide for this detention of the person, was
all Congress could now do. If the bill was recommitted, he did not think
any definite provision could be made. It was necessary the PRESIDENT
should have the power of judging in this case, and that punishment
ought not to depend upon the slow operations of a trial. Though
possessed of this power, the PRESIDENT would doubtless suffer all such
persons to remain in this country as demeaned themselves peaceably; but
when they discovered a contrary spirit, he would treat them accordingly.

Mr. GALLATIN withdrew his motion for committing the whole bill, and
moved to commit the third section of it. His arguments, he said, went
wholly against that; and gentlemen, in reply to him, had chosen to
direct their observations to other parts of the bill. As he did not wish
his object to be misunderstood, he would only move for a recommitment of
the third section of the bill, as his objections to the other parts of
it were immaterial when compared with this.

After a few words from Mr. OTIS, Mr. MACON renewed his motion for
recommitting the whole bill, which was negatived--37 to 36.

Mr. GALLATIN then renewed his motion for recommitting the third section,
which was negatived by the casting vote of the Speaker, there being
thirty-eight votes for it, and thirty-eight votes against it.

Mr. LYON renewed his motion to strike out the words "or threatened," in
the first section. He thought this too indefinite an expression upon
which to rest so important a power as was given to the PRESIDENT by this
bill. Where the liberty and happiness of thousands of people are
concerned, he wished they might depend upon something more certain.
Gentlemen who advocate this bill, he said, spoke as if all power was to
be placed in the PRESIDENT, and Congress were never to sit again. He
wished this expression to be stricken out, and if, when Congress met
again, they found the PRESIDENT had not power enough, they might give
him more. He called for the yeas and nays upon his motion.

The question for taking the yeas and nays was put, but less than
one-fifth of the members present rising in its favor, it was not
carried. The question was then put on the motion, and it was negatived
without a division.

Mr. GALLATIN supposed, if these regulations were established, it would
be proper that permits should be granted to such aliens as the PRESIDENT
should suffer to remain in the United States. He was not immediately
prepared to introduce a proper amendment for that purpose; but he would
move to add a few words in that part of the bill where it is proposed to
punish citizens for harboring aliens, to try the question. He did not
very well understand the phrase, "liable as an enemy," by which those
aliens were defined, and whom it would be criminal by this law to
harbor; but he would move to introduce the words, "who shall not have
obtained permission, under the authority of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES to remain within the territory of the United States." He moved
this, in order that citizens might not be entrapped by this law, but
that they should know precisely to what description of aliens they
might give a night's lodging, without being liable to be arrested as
suspected persons.

Mr. BAYARD did not think this amendment necessary, as a citizen must
harbor and _conceal_ an alien to be guilty of any offence.

And the question was put and negatived--38 to 33.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, May 23.

_Alien Enemies._

The bill respecting alien enemies was read the third time, when

Mr. R. WILLIAMS moved a recommitment of the bill. He said his objections
did not lie so much against the provisions respecting aliens, as to the
power proposed to be given to the PRESIDENT of issuing proclamations,
which are to be binding on the Judges and other officers with respect to
our own citizens. He would wish to designate every offence, and its
adequate punishment, as far as it could be done. In order to effect this
he made his motion.

Mr. SEWALL said, so much discussion took place on this subject
yesterday, that he did not expect any more to-day. The gentleman from
North Carolina seemed not to object to the powers given to the PRESIDENT
by the first and second sections of the bill, but he did not wish him to
have any officers to execute his powers. If the PRESIDENT could carry
the law into effect with his own hand, he might do so, but he objected
to his having any aid from his officers or the people at large. He did
not believe this kind of reasoning could have any effect in this House.
If the PRESIDENT is authorized to issue orders, he must be authorized to
require the aid of proper persons to execute them.

Mr. GALLATIN called for the yeas and nays upon this question, which,
being agreed to, he hoped this bill would be recommitted. He had no
doubt that the committee, by paying due attention to the subject,
instead of this general and vague bill, might report such rules and
regulations as would be proper to be adopted on this occasion. He
recollected seeing a bill from the Senate on this subject, in which
something of this kind was done; and though he did by no means approve
of that bill, yet it showed that the thing was not impossible. The
objection made against a recommittal of this bill, was, that it was
necessary to do something to provide means for securing and removing
alien enemies, which did not apply as an argument against the
recommitment of the bill. It was a good reason why a bill should be
passed, but no reason why it should pass in its present form. The
present bill, Mr. G. said, was grounded upon the principle that the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall have the power to do by
proclamation what ought only to be done by law.

In the first place, the Proclamation of the PRESIDENT is to determine
the period when foreigners not naturalized shall be liable to be
apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. Mr. G.
understood what was meant by apprehending alien enemies, and securing
them, but he did not understand the word "restraining;" it was vague, he
said, in its nature, and he did not know that it was a legal phrase. The
committee could themselves explain it. By the bill from the Senate, it
was intended to confine them within the place where they reside; perhaps
this was their idea. The bill goes further: they are not only liable to
be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed, but "to be subject,
with their goods and effects, to a just retaliation of any unusual
severities, restraints, and confiscations, which shall be suffered by
the citizens of the United States resident within the territory of the
hostile nation or Government, and inflicted by their authority."

Mr. G. wished to have explained what was meant by "unusual severities."
They must mean something more than confiscations--than apprehending,
restraining, or removing--because they are specifically provided for. He
wished, therefore, to know what these unusual severities were which,
upon our own ideas of Government, we could retaliate? If any other
severities besides those which are here enumerated were to be inflicted
upon our citizens in France, he thought it would be disgraceful to that
country, and he could not believe that either propriety or justice would
warrant us committing a disgraceful act against the citizens of another
nation, because that nation had committed a disgraceful act upon our
citizens in their country.

[Mr. SEWALL rose to explain, but the SPEAKER said, the rule which
declares no member shall speak more than once to a question would not
permit him.]

Mr. G. did not know whether these words "unusual severities" were not
intended to be held _in terrorem_ over the conduct of France. If so, he
did not think it a very creditable proceeding. But he believed that part
of the bill perfectly useless, for two reasons: First, it is extremely
doubtful whether the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES could
constitutionally exercise those "unusual severities," which this bill
says he may exercise; and with respect to confiscation, it was explained
by a subsequent part of the bill to be only a sequestration till the
next meeting of Congress, and he therefore conceived this part of the
bill to be of no use, except to train our code of law in a manner
expressly contrary to the spirit of our constitution, which expressly
declares no "cruel or unusual punishments" shall be inflicted.

But, supposing the words only held out _in terrorem_, he wished to know
how they would apply, whether it was to make a part of our permanent
law, whether it is suited for the present time only. If it were not to
make a part of our permanent system--and he thought no gentleman would
say it ought--then it must be on account of our present situation. As to
our present situation, in relation to any thing which may befall our
citizens in France, he would say the words are useless, and this for a
plain reason; for, out of the natives of France in this country,
ninety-nine out of an hundred are of that description of persons whom
the French call emigrants, and it is therefore perfectly immaterial to
the French nation how they are treated; so that the bill could operate
only on a dozen or two of persons of a different description who may be
in this country.

In the next place, with respect to confiscations, which by the next
clause are so limited as to become sequestrations, it would be wrong to
give this power to the PRESIDENT. An article is inserted in the British
Treaty expressly to declare that sequestrations are impolitic and unjust
in every case, and providing against them. He admitted that it might be
necessary to resort to them on some occasions, because he believed there
might be cases where sequestration would be necessary, by way of
indemnification; but what he insisted on was, that it ought to be done
by law, and not by the PRESIDENT. On a former occasion, when the
question of sequestration was before Congress, the power was not
proposed to be left at large with the PRESIDENT, but was to be regulated
by law.

There was another circumstance which showed how easy a thing it would be
to pass a law themselves, instead of leaving every regulation relative
to this subject with the PRESIDENT. About the middle of the second
section it is said, "where no treaty exists, a reasonable time shall be
allowed, which shall be ascertained and declared by the PRESIDENT, or by
the Congress of the United States." This was a kind of double
legislation which was new to him. He wished to know what difficulty
there would have been in defining the time here referred to in this
bill? It appeared to him the right and proper time to do it. From the
moment that the resolution came before the House, he was ready to
acknowledge that the power of regulating this business was in the power
of Government, as it was a power possessed by every nation, which it had
a right to exercise for its own security; but it ought to be exercised
according to law. In some countries, indeed, this power is vested in the
Executive. In France, he believed, it was wholly so, and in England in a
great degree; but in this country he trusted that this House would be of
opinion that Congress is the proper body to regulate so important a
measure.

But the evil, Mr. G. said, did not stop here, it extended to all the
citizens of the United States. The object of the last section provides
that justices, judges, marshals, sheriffs, and the people at large shall
perform a duty which is undefined. But the gentleman from Massachusetts
says this is right, because the power given to the Executive by this
bill is also undefined. This is the foundation of all the objection made
to this bill; it is to the want of legislation in it, which leaves not
only alien enemies, but citizens of the United States, to the will of
the PRESIDENT.

But he would go farther, and say it is impossible to define the duties
of our own citizens, though the two first sections of the bill should be
left at large as they are. By the present bill, the duties of justices,
&c., are to be regulated by the Proclamation of the PRESIDENT. He could
conceive that the House might take into consideration the nature of the
powers vested in the PRESIDENT, and inquire what will be the duties
required to be performed by the several officers of the Government to
carry into effect those powers. Those powers are to apprehend, restrain,
secure, and remove alien enemies, and to sequester their property. As to
the removal of aliens, he could not see what justices and judges had to
do with it; but if they had any thing to do with it, Congress ought to
say what. They might say what should be the duties of judges or
justices, or of Executive officers in the several cases which may be
likely to occur, instead of leaving the thing wholly at large.

The last part of the 3d section, he said, was as objectionable as any
other. It defines the crime in two words, "harboring and concealing,"
and the penalty, if found guilty of this vague and uncertain charge, is
imprisonment not exceeding seven years, and a fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars. So that if a person be found guilty of harboring and
concealing an alien enemy, however trifling the expense may be, his
punishment will be left wholly to the discretion of the court. The only
power of the jury will be to decide on the fact; and if a citizen has
harbored for one night, however undesignedly, an alien enemy, he must be
found guilty, leaving it altogether to the court to judge of the
criminality of the act, and to affix the degree of punishment. He
thought this part of the law ought to be better defined. It ought to
distinguish between cases of misdemeanor and those which might arise
from ignorance, and in which no offence at all might exist. He hoped,
therefore, the bill would be recommitted.

The question on recommitting the bill was put and carried--46 to 44. The
yeas and nays were as follow,

      YEAS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
      Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Stephen Bullock,
      Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole
      Claiborne, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson,
      George Dent, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert
      Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, William Barry
      Grove, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N.
      Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Matthew
      Locke, Matthew Lyon, James Machir, Nathaniel Macon, Blair
      McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New,
      Josiah Parker, John Read, William Smith, Richard Sprigg,
      jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John
      Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham
      Venable, and Robert Williams.

      NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James
      A. Bayard, David Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, John
      Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel
      W. Dana, John Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel
      Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn,
      Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper,
      Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James
      H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William
      Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis,
      James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas
      Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, George
      Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas
      Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John
      Williams.

Mr. SEWALL, Mr. DANA, Mr. IMLAY, Mr. S. SMITH, Mr. JOSIAH PARKER, Mr.
BROOKS, and Mr. RUTLEDGE, composed the committee.


FRIDAY, May 25.

_Instructions to Armed Vessels._

Mr. SEWALL, from the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and the
Defence of the Country, to whom was referred Mr. SITGREAVES' resolutions
for instructing the commanders of our public and private armed vessels,
and also the bill from the Senate for the further protection of the
commerce and coast of the United States, reported it as the opinion of
that committee that the bill from the Senate ought to be agreed to by
the House.

The report was twice read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of
the Whole.

On the SPEAKER'S asking for what day this bill should be made the order,
Monday, to-morrow, and to-day, were named.

The question was first taken on Monday, and negatived--43 to 37.

The question was then put upon to-morrow.

Mr. GALLATIN hoped this bill would be made the order for to-morrow, as
the bill had only been printed this morning, and the report but this
moment made. It would be a very extraordinary proceeding to make this
very important bill the order for this day.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, this was a very extraordinary case. When we learn
every day that our vessels are taken by the French cruisers, without any
cause whatever, it is necessary to act with decision. This day had been
spent on a very trifling business compared with this, and he hoped the
House would sit until this bill was gone through.

Mr. MCDOWELL hoped this bill would be made the order for to-morrow, as
it had only been laid upon the table this morning, and few gentlemen had
yet turned their attention to it. Besides, the usual hour of adjournment
is arrived, and he hoped gentlemen would not insist upon hurrying so
important a bill through the House in this manner. The gentleman from
New York remarked that the House had been engaged in trifling business
all the day; but, he observed that gentleman sat very contentedly under
the discussion, though he now seems so desirous of expediting this
business.

Mr. SEWALL was impressed with the necessity of passing this bill as soon
as possible. If the committee had thought they might with propriety have
taken time to deliberate upon this subject, they would not have made
this report, but have taken into consideration the resolution which had
been referred to them with this bill; but finding it necessary that our
armed vessels should receive their instructions immediately, that they
may go out and take the vessels on the coast, or drive them off, they
made this report, intending hereafter to report farther upon the
subject. But the present measures they thought necessary, from the
peculiarity of our present situation; the dangers attending which the
people without seemed to be fully persuaded of. And as this subject had
been fully discussed on the resolutions which had been before the House,
he hoped the bill would be immediately taken up; as he wished to provide
without delay for the defence of our coast as far as our force would
permit.

Mr. MACON said, it was very extraordinary indeed, that gentlemen should
wish to hurry this bill through the House in the way proposed. It
appeared as if they were afraid of any thing coming from our
Commissioners before they got the country in war. Being now the usual
hour of adjournment, it could not be expected that if the House went
into this bill, that any debate could take place. Indeed, gentlemen
seemed to wish to prevent debate as much as possible; a few days ago,
they had got a rule passed that no person should speak more than once to
any question, and now by moving to go into a Committee of the Whole, at
the hour of adjournment, they wish to prevent them from speaking once,
and that upon a bill which will certainly place the country in a state
of war. He thought a regard to decency ought to prevent gentlemen from
pushing this motion.

Mr. LYON called upon gentlemen to consider the importance of this bill.
He considered it as a declaration of war as it now stands, and he hoped
time would be given to consider whether some amendment could not be
introduced into it, so as to prevent its being so considered. At
present, he believed, it was directly in the face of the laws of
nations. He was desirous of avoiding war if possible. His constituents
also wished it. He had received at least two hundred letters requesting
him to do all in his power to prevent it. Indeed, he was afraid of the
consequences of war; he was afraid it might produce even a dissolution
of the present Government.

Mr. BRENT was proceeding to express his astonishment at the conduct of
gentlemen in wishing to press so important a subject upon the House,
while members were impatient to adjourn, when,

Mr. SEWALL rose and withdrew His motion, and the bill was made the order
of the day for to-morrow.


SATURDAY, May 26.

_Protection of Commerce._

Mr. SEWALL called for the order of the day on the bill from the Senate
for the more effectual protection of the commerce and coasts of the
United States; and the House accordingly resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the said bill, Mr. DENT in the chair. The bill
having been read,[34]

Mr. MACON rose and observed, that he wished to amend both the bill and
the preamble to it, and desired the Chairman to say which it would be in
order to move first. The Chairman having answered that it would be most
regular first to amend the bill, and then the preamble could be made
conformable to it, Mr. MACON moved to strike out the word "such," in the
enacting clause (the effect of which was to make the instructions given
to the commanders of our vessels general against all cruisers, as well
as against the French.) His reason for making the motion was, that if
this bill must pass, it might be general against all nations who commit
depredations upon our commerce, for it was a fact well known that France
is not the only nation which does this. It was his opinion, that before
any measure of this kind was taken, we ought to know the result of our
mission in France; for, however slender our expectations of an
accommodation may be, still those expectations ought not to be
abandoned, until we are certain our Commissioners have left Paris,
without being able to accomplish their mission.

Mr. M. believed it could not be doubted by any one, that, if we had
thought a state of war preferable to the state in which we had been
placed for some time back, we had had sufficient provocation from more
than one nation to have declared war long ago. Indeed he looked upon
this bill as a declaration of war in substance; he saw that this was the
situation to which measures were progressing, but he could not have
expected that gentlemen would have proposed a measure of this kind
whilst our Commissioners were yet in Paris. It was his opinion, however,
that, disagreeable as our present situation may be, it is much
preferable to a state of war; for, notwithstanding all the losses which
our merchants have sustained, our trade and our revenue are continually
increasing.

In the part of the country from whence he came, Mr. M. said, the price
of produce is now higher than it has been for some time past. But, in
the case of war, it would fall, of course.

Notwithstanding all the evils which he was sensible must attend on a
state of war, when he found our Commissioners had left France, and no
hope of accommodation remained, he should not hesitate to join gentlemen
in any measures which shall be necessary to meet a state of war.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, the gentleman from South Carolina had dwelt much upon
the inconsistency of the present motion. He himself could not see any in
it. He had insinuated that the mover and seconder of it must be blinded
by prejudice and governed by passion; that, instead of going to war with
one nation, it would be going to war with three, and that before we
remonstrate with them, or request them to desist from their practices;
that we have been attempting to get redress from France for eighteen
months past without effect, but that no attempt has been made to
negotiate with England or Spain on the subject of their depredations. In
this the gentleman from South Carolina was certainly mistaken. He knew
we had lately concluded a treaty with England, which had been constantly
violated; and what faith, Mr. McD. asked, could be placed in a nation
which one day makes a treaty, and the next violates it? The same remark
would apply to Spain, so far as they have depredated upon our commerce.

Mr. McD. said, he had all along declared himself opposed to war, or to
any measures which would lead to it, and he still held the same opinion.
He had no prejudice against or in favor of any nation whatever, except
so far as their conduct towards this country was friendly or otherwise;
and he could see no reason for giving instructions to the commanders of
our vessels to seize and bring in the vessels of one country which may
commit depredations upon our commerce, and not those of another. He was
himself opposed to the bill altogether; but, if it must pass, he wished
to make it contain as little mischief as possible, and he thought by
striking out the word "such," and by that means making it general,
France could not take the same offence at it; as the bill now stood, it
was tantamount to a declaration of war.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS was in hopes, when the gentleman from North Carolina
first made his motion, that the opposition which he had heretofore shown
was done away, and that the bill was only objected to because it was not
general; but now it appears that gentlemen are opposed to the bill
altogether. He had hoped when gentlemen had reflected upon what had
taken place, even within our own jurisdiction, that there would not have
been a single dissenting voice in the committee. Gentlemen allege that
this measure will lead to war; but he would ask whether other neutral
nations had not taken measures fully as strong as this, without
producing war? For his part, he supposed it might have been better if
this country had gone into this system of defending our commerce. He was
opposed to it for a considerable time. He was in hopes of a
reconciliation taking place; but he had been deceived from time to time,
and, instead of any appearance of accommodation, every day brought
information which convinced him that, except we meant to submit
altogether, we must defend ourselves.

This being the case, he asked gentlemen which they would choose? Whether
they would suffer themselves to come under the power of the French
nation, or repel force by force? He did not believe any gentleman would
say we ought not to embrace the latter.

At a time when the enemy's vessels are within our own jurisdiction, are
we to withhold the necessary instructions to the commanders of our
vessels? He hoped not. Not that he would go hastily into war; but have
we not, he asked, been in war for a long time?--a war on one side, and
total submission on the other. Yet the House are now called upon to
postpone the consideration of this question, lest it should produce war.
The only way to prevent a war, he believed, was to be prepared to meet
it. If spirited measures had been taken during the extraordinary session
of Congress, he believed it might have prevented the loss of property to
the amount of twenty millions of dollars, and the necessity of a war.
But Congress had gone on, from time to time, saying, we will wait for
this, that, and the other, and it will, in all probability, prevent war.
This conduct had produced the greatest difficulties, and yet gentlemen
wish to go further in the same course. The enemy's vessels, he
understood, are within the Capes, and he supposed gentlemen would wait
till they came up to the city, before they would take any means to
oppose them. He believed it was high time to say, "We will not submit,"
and to prepare to repel the repeated aggressions of our enemy.

Mr. SHEPARD observed, that much had been said on this bill, and on the
resolutions on the same subject, which were referred to the same
committee. Members differed in opinion very materially as to the proper
mode of conducting our affairs at this important crisis; but he could
see no reason for deferring vigorous measures any longer, as he did not
see the least ground of hope for a reconciliation; it was, therefore,
idle to dispute about it.

But gentlemen decline taking this measure, because they are apprehensive
it will irritate the French nation. Mr. S. believed this country could
do nothing to alter the conduct of the French nation towards us, except
it were by giving them money. There could be no doubt, he said, but the
French meant to subjugate this Government, and to lay the United States
under contribution. Every newspaper told them this; yet some gentlemen
seem opposed to every thing intended to resist their doings, or even to
tell them they have done wrong. For his part, he believed that nation
had been boiling over with madness for two years past, and that they are
totally void of every virtue.

They have told us, said Mr. S., in plain terms, they mean to subjugate
us. They say they have a strong party in this country, and that they
understand diplomatic agency as well as any other nation. This he
believed, as he saw they had effectually used that power in subduing
every country in Europe that they had any thing to do with, except
Great Britain, and he feared they would succeed against her. No man, he
said, disliked war more than him; but, he believed, the best way of
preserving ourselves from it, was to take measures to oppose a power
which has so unjustly treated us. We ought not, he said, to trifle any
longer, but take new ground. The more insults we submit to, the more we
shall have. He could not suppose gentlemen would be willing to wait till
all our vessels are taken and our Government overcome, before they will
make resistance. If we meant to preserve our independence, he believed
resistance ought now to be made. It is time, said he, to tell the French
nation, "we will not submit any longer." This was the way we gained our
independence, and this must be the way by which we must keep it. He
hoped, therefore, the bill would pass as it stands.

Mr. OTIS said, though he had sufficient confidence in the committee to
induce him to believe that the present motion cannot succeed, yet he
could not forbear to expostulate with gentlemen on the impropriety of
any measures which should have a tendency to give unnecessary offence to
other nations, besides that against which we are called upon to act. To
increase our foes would only be to aggravate our misfortunes. Mr. O.
hoped and believed this country would be able to defend itself singly
and alone; but, supposing, as gentlemen agree to be true, that we are on
the eve of a war, would it not be highly impolitic to irritate a power
whose assistance we may find very acceptable in the course of a few
months against a common enemy? He hoped it would never be necessary to
seek for this assistance, though it is possible, if we are driven into
war with our old friends, that we may willingly avail ourselves of the
aid of our old enemies; for, though we had suffered injuries from more
nations than one, yet he agreed with our Envoys in the sentiment that,
if France should attack us, we must seek the best means of defence; and
may find it more prudent to forgive than to provoke, by harsh measures,
a nation which may aid in our defence.

Mr. O. said, if, after injuries had been committed against us by Great
Britain and Spain, of the same nature with those which have been heaped
upon us by France, and those nations, like her, had refused to hear us,
or to do us justice, he would support the same measures against them and
vindicate our national character and honor. But though he should by no
means attempt to extenuate the conduct of Great Britain or Spain, he
believed he might say that the depredations committed by those powers
subsequent to their treaties, have been under color, at least, of the
laws of nations. But the difference in the degrees of these
depredations, in comparison with those of the French Republic, cannot be
better ascertained than by the rates of insurance paid as a security
against them respectively.

Insurance may be effected against the Spanish and British for five per
cent., whilst it cannot be procured against the French for less than
twenty-five or thirty per cent. And though the British cruisers do, in
some cases, take our vessels, in others they afford them protection.
Indeed, he believed, the number of our vessels rescued from the fangs of
the French, and restored to us by the British, greatly exceed in value
the amount of those which have been taken from us by them since their
treaty. They have saved to Philadelphia about a half a million of
dollars. With respect to Spain, he believed her disposition towards us
to be friendly, and that an injury offered by them to us was done at the
instigation of another country. Again, we have received, under the late
treaty with Great Britain, £100,000 sterling for damages sustained by
her depredations, and from Spain $300,000 have been awarded on the same
account. So that no comparison could possibly be made between the
treatment we experienced from France and those countries. She makes no
treaties--she pays no compensations.

Mr. KITTERA rose to observe, that one of the articles in our treaties
with Great Britain and Spain, stipulates that no reprisals shall be
authorized by either country until application shall be made to the
other, which he thought would be a sufficient reason for negativing the
amendment. He believed it would be proper to adopt an additional rule to
those already established for the government of the House, viz: that
when French privateers come within our own ports and take our vessels, a
long debate shall not take place upon a bill to instruct the commanders
of our vessels to make reprisals.

Mr. GALLATIN, in reply to the last observation of Mr. KITTERA, said
that, if his assertion was true, that the French privateers were
committing depredations within our own ports, or any where within our
jurisdiction, it was no reason why this bill should pass immediately;
for, without the bill, the PRESIDENT had full power to apply the armed
vessels, or any other force at his disposal, in repelling the outrage.
As to the amendment, he would not pretend to say that it was very
essential; but, he supposed, the reason for moving it was this: It was
asserted that this bill was not a declaration of war, but only a kind of
special reprisal authorized by the law of nations; it was, therefore,
thought it would be proper to make it a general regulation. If it was
intended to be a declaration of war, it would be extremely wrong to make
two enemies instead of one. If it was to be passed with that intention,
it would be wrong to adopt the amendment; but he supposed it was
introduced on the ground assumed by the supporters of the bill, that the
measures proposed might be entered into without violating the laws of
nations, and consistently with a state of peace.

The question was put and negatived, there being only 22 for it.

The question then came up on the bill's going to a third reading; when

Mr. BRENT said he voted against the amendment offered by the gentleman
from North Carolina, because he apprehended its effects would be to
involve us in war with two countries instead of one. The amendment of
the gentleman from North Carolina was to strike out the word _such_ in
the bill, in which instance the commanders of our armed vessels would
have been directed by the PRESIDENT to seize and take the vessels of any
nations that shall have committed, or are found hovering on our coast
for the purpose of committing, depredations on the commerce of the
United States. As the bill now stands, it will only apply to French
depredations; if amended as proposed, it would have applied to Great
Britain, or any other country whose subjects or citizens are unlawfully
spoliating our commerce--as he believed that the laws of nations and the
stipulations of treaties had been violated in relation to us, not only
by the French, but the British also, he considered the tendency of this
amendment might be to involve us in war with Great Britain, and he did
not wish to increase the number of foes with whom we were to engage in
hostility. That he was accurate in his opinion that the armed vessels of
Great Britain were at this time in the practice of violating our neutral
rights, seemed to be acknowledged by others, and particularly by the
member from Massachusetts, (Mr. OTIS,) who had opposed the amendment,
with a suggestion that in the event of an open rupture with France, it
might be expedient for us to call in the aid of England, and, supposing
the amendment might have a tendency to create irritation between that
country and this, it was improper that at this crisis it should be
adopted. This reasoning of the gentleman from Massachusetts could only
be derived from an admission that Great Britain did not at this time
respect our neutral rights; for, as the amendment only authorized the
seizure of vessels spoliating our lawful commerce, there could be no
danger that such a regulation would involve us in war, or produce a
coolness with Great Britain, without a previous acknowledgment that her
armed vessels were illegally depredating our commerce, and consequently
would be affected by the general provision of the amendment, which,
instead of confining our reprisals to French, extended it to vessels of
all nations thus acting illegally in relation to ours.

Though, Mr. BRENT said, he was not, under any circumstances, like the
gentleman from Massachusetts, for embarking our destiny with that of
Great Britain in her present contest with France; though he should
consider such an event as one of the most deplorable which could befall
the United States, yet he was willing and even studious to preserve
peace with Great Britain, notwithstanding the many injuries we had
received from that quarter; on the same principle, from the same desire
to preserve the tranquillity of His country, he was opposed to the bill
itself. He considered this bill as perhaps determining the question,
whether or not there should remain a possibility of reconciling our
differences with the French Republic. He considered this bill as
probably dispelling every ray of hope which yet remained of a
reconciliation taking place, and he hoped gentlemen would pause a moment
before they adopted a measure so serious and awful. He did not see that
we were at present exposed to any greater danger, or our commerce to any
great extent to ravages more considerable than we had experienced for
some time past.

He acknowledged that our commerce had received great and repeated
injuries from France; that it had long felt their injuries and still
continued to suffer; yet, under all these circumstances, a disposition
has been constantly evinced, and he believed was still sincerely
cherished by the great mass of our people, that recourse should not be
had to the last fatal resort, till every mode of amicable negotiation
had been attempted, and every rational hope of a peaceable adjustment of
our complaints was exhausted. From these impressions, and at a period
when our commerce was suffering their unjust depredations, we had sent
Commissioners to the French nation; and was it proper, until we were
certainly advised that our Commissioners had left France, or that every
hope of their effecting the object of their mission was to be abandoned,
to precipitate a measure, the probable effect of which would be to
destroy all prospect of reconciliation, even if, at the present moment,
our Commissioners should be engaged in a treaty? Mr. B. said, that
neither the despatches which we had received from our Commissioners, nor
any other intelligence from abroad, that he was acquainted with,
compelled a belief that every possibility of negotiation was past; on
the contrary, it was perhaps strictly within the bounds of probability,
that, when the Government of France discovered an inflexible disposition
on our part not to accede to terms dishonorable or disadvantageous,
others of a less exceptionable nature would be, and perhaps before this
have been, proposed. But, in every event, what is now a matter of
conjecture, a few weeks will reduce to certainty; a few weeks must bring
us certain and decisive accounts from Europe, and he was for postponing
all deliberation respecting the very delicate subject under
consideration till this intelligence arrived. At present, he believed it
would be premature and inexpedient to adopt the proposed measures, and
should therefore refuse to give them his assent.

The question on the bill going to a third reading, was taken by yeas and
nays, and stood--51 to 39.

The bill having been determined to be read a third time, the usual
question was put by the SPEAKER, "For what day shall it be made the
order?" Monday and to-day were answered.

Mr. GALLATIN hoped Monday would be the day. He did not see the necessity
for passing the bill to-day. But it was said, the House ought not to
exercise their discretion upon this subject, because French privateers
are within our Capes. To this, he replied, that if there was any
invasion of our jurisdiction, and depredations committed within it, the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES had power to repel them without this law.
He knew he had it, because the power is expressly given to him in the
law respecting the revenue cutters; and he knew the power had been used
by him when a vessel, taken by a privateer within our jurisdiction, had
been restored to the owner by the PRESIDENT. He agreed with the
gentleman from Delaware, that the PRESIDENT had not power to employ an
armed force to make reprisals of vessels within our jurisdiction which
may have taken vessels belonging to the United States.

Besides, he understood that the Senate were not in session to-day, and
therefore the bill, if passed to-day, could not go any sooner to the
Senate than if it passed on Monday. If, therefore, it could not hasten
the final passage of the bill by going to the Senate to-day, he wished
to know what other reason could be given for so hasty a proceeding? He
saw none. He saw one reason for not passing it. Every hour might be
expected to bring despatches from our Ministers. It was known that a
vessel had arrived from France which is said to have brought accounts up
to the 8th of April. Perhaps she may bring information that would
produce unanimity of opinion as to the propriety of passing this bill.

Mr. J. PARKER said, as it could make no difference whether this bill
passed to-day or on Monday, he should be in favor of Monday, as it is
possible the vessel which had been mentioned might bring some advices
from our Envoys, though he expected nothing more favorable from that
quarter than had been already received. As it was said a French
privateer was within our boundary, it was probable she might commit some
depredation which might be heard of before Monday, which would convince
every one of the necessity of passing this bill.

Mr. OTIS saw no reason for delaying the passage of this bill till
Monday, arising from the possibility of the vessel, which was said to
have arrived from France, having brought any news; because, if
information should be received from our Commissioners which would give a
different aspect to our affairs, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
could refrain from giving these instructions. If this bill was passed
to-day, it might be reported to the Senate on Monday morning; but if it
was postponed till Monday, gentlemen might come with fresh motions and
speeches, and produce a further delay.

Mr. DAVIS hoped the passage of this bill would not be insisted upon
to-day. This subject had but very lately been referred to a select
committee, and they had made an expeditious report. He had just given
his vote in favor of the bill's passing to a third reading; but if,
contrary to the usage of the House, he should be called upon to vote on
the passage of the bill to-day, he should vote against it.

Mr. VARNUM said, since the bill would become a law as soon if passed on
Monday, as to-day, he could not see why the motion was objected to. This
question, Mr. V. said, was of the greatest importance, as it went to
plunging the country into a war from which it might not be extricated
for many years to come. Yet gentlemen act as if they were afraid
intelligence should be received before this bill becomes a law, which
shall make it unnecessary. Indeed, it appeared to him, that there are
certain gentlemen in the House who are determined to have a war with
France, at any rate.

Mr. V. said, it had been complained that an allusion had been made to
the coffee-house books of this city, respecting certain information from
France; he did not think that was more out of order, than what was heard
one day about French privateers having landed men on the coast--another,
about their being in our harbors, and taking our vessels from thence.
All which stories, he had no doubt, were raised to influence the votes
of members of this House. The public would doubtless see them in this
light.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, as the gentleman last up appeared to have some
doubt as to the fact of a French privateer's being within the bay of
Delaware, he would read the information lately given by a Captain Canby,
on oath, at the office of the Secretary of State. [This certificate has
appeared in the papers: it speaks of having seen a French privateer four
miles within the bay.] He would add, that with respect to the vessel
arrived from Bordeaux to-day, she brings information that our
Commissioners were yet in Paris, but not received by the Directory. She
left Bordeaux the 8th April, so that the hope of receiving any favorable
news by her could not be indulged. Mr. S. observed, that this bill was
intended to meet a case of emergency, and it was proper to get it passed
as soon as possible. If he saw it passed to-day, he should be sure there
could be no difficulty about it next week; but, if it was postponed till
Monday, he should be afraid of further time being spent upon it. The
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. DAVIS) had already said, it would not be
proper to pass this bill while our Envoys are in Paris; therefore,
though the question were postponed till Monday, his vote could not be
expected. He, therefore, saw no reason for the delay.

The question on the bill's being read a third time on Monday, was put
and negatived, 49 to 41. The question on reading it a third time to-day,
was then put and carried.

The bill was accordingly read the third time and passed by yeas 50, nays
40, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James
      A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G.
      Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William
      Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, George Dent, William
      Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster,
      Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger
      Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper,
      Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James
      H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir,
      William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison
      G. Otis, Josiah Parker, John Read, James Schureman, Samuel
      Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel
      Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, George Thatcher, Richard
      Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van
      Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

      NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemue Benton, Thos.
      Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Thomas
      Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton,
      Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, John
      Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg,
      John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens,
      Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke,
      Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph
      McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, William Smith,
      Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram
      Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
      Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.


MONDAY, May 28.

_Marine Corps._

Mr. SEWALL called for the order of the day on the report of the
Committee for the Protection of Commerce and the Defence of the Country,
proposing an arrangement, in one corps, of the marines, who are or shall
be engaged in the service of the United States, and by annexing them to
the existing Military Establishment, to consist of a major and suitable
commissioned and non-commissioned officers, 500 privates, and the
necessary musicians.

Mr. GALLATIN wished the committee who made this report, would inform the
House how many men would be wanted on board the several armed vessels of
the United States.

Mr. J. PARKER said the United States have three frigates, twelve ships,
and ten galleys. The two 44 gun frigates will require fifty marines
each; one of 36 will need 48 men; two vessels of 22 guns each, will want
25 each; two vessels of 20 guns will require the same number; eight
vessels of 16 guns each will need 20 men each; and ten galleys each 10
men, making in the whole 518, exclusive of sergeants and music. There
will be no additional expense attending the change except the pay of a
major, and it would be much more convenient to be thus organized, than
to remain as at present.

Mr. VARNUM wished to know whether these men could ever be together so as
to enable the commanding officer of a battalion to discipline the corps.
He believed they would be separate in the different vessels, and that
there would be no means of bringing them together for the purpose.
Besides, those marines who have engaged in the service, have engaged to
serve on board ship, and not on land, so that this law would have a
retrospective effect on those men, now, to say they should serve both on
sea and land.

Mr. SEWALL could not say that these marines could be brought together to
be disciplined; but the major would superintend the whole, hear
complaints, and attend to the recruiting service. He would also have to
attend to the fortifications, and take a great deal of trouble from the
War office. The men would also sometimes be on shore, and without some
officer is appointed, they would be solely under the care of the
lieutenant. He believed, upon the whole, much advantage and economy
would be derived from it.

The question being put upon the report, it was agreed to--54 votes being
for it.

The committee then rose, and the House agreed to the report, after a few
observations from Mr. GALLATIN, hoping that, when the bill was brought
in, this corps of marines would not be made a permanent part of the
Military Establishment; but only have the same duration with the laws
for equipping and keeping in employment the armed vessels.


FRIDAY, June 1.

_Intercourse with France._

The bill for suspending the commercial intercourse between the United
States and the French Republic, was read the third time; and, after the
blanks were filled,

Mr. GALLATIN inquired, whether there was not a mistake in the third
section of the bill in that part which related to foreigners. The bill,
as it stands, would affect vessels belonging to foreigners residing
here. He proposed a change in the phraseology.

Mr. SEWALL had no objection to the alteration, and he supposed it might
be made by general consent, without recommitting the bill.

Consent was granted, and the alteration made.

The following question was then put, "Shall this bill pass?"

Mr. MCDOWELL could not reconcile it to himself to give a silent vote on
the passage of this important bill. He had heard no reason assigned for
the introduction of this bill, either when the original proposition was
before the House, or since; and, therefore, though the bill might pass
by a large majority, he should give his vote against it. It had been
said, by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that this bill was intended
to secure the property of the citizens of the United States from
capture. How was this to be done? This bill will not lay an embargo,
and, therefore, cannot prevent our vessels from falling into the hands
of the French, or any other nation, who chooses to attack them. If
gentlemen wished to effect their object, they ought to propose a general
embargo; but when he found gentlemen indisposed to this, he could
scarcely believe them serious in their wishes to prevent the property of
our citizens from being taken. By this bill our merchants are
prohibited from trading to any of the ports of France or her
dependencies. This he neither thought politic or just. He thought there
was no cause for going this length at present. It would be seen by the
estimate on the table, the great amount of exports sent to those
countries, and this bill would not only destroy the trade to France and
her dependencies, but affect also all our other trade. Gentlemen better
acquainted with commerce than he pretended to be, would be able to
ascertain the effects of this regulation with more precision than he
could do; but it appeared to him that this regulation would put the
whole of our exports within the power of Great Britain. He hoped,
therefore, gentlemen would consider the inconveniences which would be
produced by this measure, and not suffer their passions, which are so
highly irritated against France, to lead our citizens into serious
difficulties, for the sake of doing her some injury. There could be no
doubt, that the moment France received the information of the passage of
this bill, all negotiation would be put an end to, and they will lay
their hands on all the property belonging to citizens of this country,
which they can meet with. He was of opinion that the prudence of
merchants alone would be sufficient to regulate the business, without
Legislative interference. Mr. McD. hoped, therefore, the bill would be
passed, and called the yeas and nays upon it.

Mr. SEWALL said, it was very true, as the gentleman from North Carolina
observed, that no general reasons had been given in favor of this bill;
and he did not know that any opportunity had occurred in which they
could with propriety have been given. Certainly if a measure meets with
general approbation, and passes without argument and without discussion,
it must have been carried for the best reasons. Reasons, said he, are
not strengthened by debate; general consent indicates the strongest
reasons in favor of a measure that can be assigned.

The gentleman from North Carolina has supposed that the only arguments
in favor of this bill was, that it would be the means of protecting the
commerce of our citizens; that argument, he agreed, was forcible, but he
confessed he relied upon this measure very much affecting our enemy. It
occurred to the committee that this measure might very much distress the
French West Indies, which are the harbor of a nest of pirates, which
continually assail our commerce. It is true, he said, that our commerce
is also annoyed in the European seas, but in a much greater degree from
vessels fitted out from the West Indies; the privateers from these
islands depredate our commerce upon our coast, and if no measures are
taken to prevent it, they might soon be expected on our shores. Any
measure, therefore, which can be taken, consistent with our political
situation, ought to be taken to prevent this mischief. This would not be
carrying on hostility, but would withdraw from our enemies the means of
supporting their hostility. Gentlemen have objected to this bill
because they conceive it will not have this effect; he was, on the
contrary, in favor of it, because he believed it would have the effect.

Mr. S. considered our trade with France as at present annihilated, as
well as that with Spain and Holland, in a great degree; and France must
hereafter, if this bill passes into a law, carry on her trade with this
country by means of vessels belonging to the Hanse Towns, Sweden, or
Denmark; and having reduced France to the necessity of changing her
measures with regard to the neutral powers of Europe, she might,
perhaps, be induced to change her conduct with respect to the United
States, or perhaps with respect to all the neutral powers. He thought
this measure recommended by these political considerations. Whether it
would produce all the effect which had been mentioned, he could not
tell, but it was well calculated to produce it. And the only objection
to the measure appeared to be, that it would produce commercial
disadvantages to our merchants; but since the adoption of the decree of
the French Directory, which directs that all neutral vessels, with
British produce or manufactures on board, shall be confiscated as good
prizes, and which goes to the destruction of nearly all our trade, this
objection would have but little weight, as a trade thus carried on would
stand but a very small chance of producing any profit. Some merchants,
indeed, are of opinion that our trade to France and her dependencies has
for a long time past been attended with loss instead of profit. It was
evident, he said, that the decree to which he had alluded had already
had the effect in this country to lower the price of our produce, as
many vessels employed in that trade are now employed in a different
manner.

Mr. GALLATIN must confess, without pretending to be a very good judge of
the subject, that this measure appeared to him at least of a doubtful
nature. The object of it is said to be to distress France and the French
West Indies as much as possible. How far this could be effected, or
whether the attempt to distress our enemy might not distress ourselves
more than the enemy, he was not able to ascertain with precision. With
respect to France herself, he did not see that it could have any effect.
As to the West Indies, Guadaloupe, which he supposed was the place
principally aimed at, was so situated with respect to neutral islands
that she could always procure supplies of provisions from them. The only
place, then, which would be affected by this regulation would be St.
Domingo, and there he believed it might have some effect. If the
intercourse between this country and that was stopped, it might be
distressed for want of provisions; but in doing this he was persuaded we
should also injure ourselves, by annihilating our commerce and sinking
the price of our produce. With respect to our commerce, in six weeks or
two months, all the trade which our merchants now carry on to French
ports would be transferred to other neutral nations. The Danes and
Swedes will come into our ports and carry our produce to the French
islands; so that the only difference, after that time, will be that the
carrying trade which we now have will be transferred to those powers.
France will be supplied by way of Holland or Hamburg, and as the freight
and other expenses attending the trade will of course be greater than if
the commerce was carried on direct, it may be expected the price here
will be low. It would be the same with respect to provisions. If the
measure would be likely to distress France or her islands to any
considerable degree, so as the better to bring her to terms of
accommodation, he should not object to it. The inconveniences attending
it must be encountered by our citizens; but seeing its effects on our
enemy would be doubtful, and upon ourselves certain, he should vote
against the bill.

Effectually to prevent provisions being carried to the West Indies, the
exportation of them ought to be forbidden, both in our own vessels and
in all others. Without this we cannot prevent our provisions from being
exported by means of neutral vessels to French ports.

So far as related to his own constituents, Mr. G. said, they are not
immediately concerned in this question, as they do not export their
produce either to the West Indies or any port of Europe, but to New
Orleans, by the Mississippi. He stated the matter as it struck him, and
left other gentlemen to enlarge upon it.

Mr. RUTLEDGE allowed that the bill was liable to the objection which had
been urged by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and which might be made
against every measure which would be proposed for the defence of the
country; it might be said of it that it will produce some inconvenience
to our constituents, and bear hard upon the commercial and agricultural
interests; but he believed no measure could be devised which would prove
so injurious to France, and as little inconvenient to America, as
suspending the commercial intercourse between the two countries.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania thinks the bill under consideration will
prove fruitless, because the vessels of Sweden and Denmark may carry our
produce to the French West Indies; this could not be contemplated as a
probable event; in the convulsed state in which almost all the
commercial States of Europe are, neutral bottoms will be in too great
demand in Europe to permit of their seeking freights in America. If,
however, they shall come here, and the Danes and Swedes become our
carriers, we can then adopt the regulation suggested by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania; we can then prohibit our intercourse with the French,
even by means of neutrals; or as that may be impracticable, inasmuch as
we shall not have any control over a neutral vessel after she leaves our
ports, we can lay a general embargo.

Mr. R. thought gentlemen were greatly mistaken who imagined the present
measure would lower the prices of our produce. He did not believe they
would fall in consequence of the present bill or any which could be
passed. He did not believe a declared war would lower the price of our
grain. For some time past, an _ex parte_ war has existed; the French
have made war in every sea upon our commerce, which for months past has
been bleeding at every pore. Government has not protected the trade of
the country, but has, by preventing our vessels from arming, deprived
our merchants of the use of the means their wealth afforded, of
protecting themselves; thus insurance and seamen's wages have been
higher, and the price of produce lower than they probably will be in a
state of declared war. The grain of the State he had the honor of
representing sells for less than it has done for twenty years past, or
at any period of the last war; rice, which is the great staple of the
country, and which, a few years ago, sold at six dollars the hundred
weight, now sells but for a dollar and a half, and Indian corn, which
article, the year before last, sold at a dollar a bushel, now sells for
twenty-five cents only.

The gentleman from North Carolina has insisted, that because our trade
to France and her dependencies, for the two last years, has been great,
we ought not to stop it. He thinks that merchants understand their
interests better than we do, and that if they, who are in the habit of
calculating risks, think it proper to prosecute a trade with France,
that we ought not to restrain them. Mr. R. allowed that our exports to
France the year before the last had been great, but said that our
returns had been small indeed; of the great number of valuable cargoes
sent to St. Domingo, very few have been paid for. The proclamations of
persons in authority in that island, and other deceptive contrivances,
have allured much of our property to its ports, but, arriving there, it
has been arbitrarily taken at a price fixed by the government, and
payment made by bills upon France, which have not been paid, and are now
lying protested at Paris, to the amount of many millions of dollars. So
that our exports, which the gentleman says France has taken, have been
literally _taken_, very little of it having been paid for. Upon such
terms it was impossible to suppose this commerce would continue, and it
is fallacious in the extreme to calculate, as a permanent trade, that
which a peculiar state of things has occasioned with the French islands
for some years past, and which we are now suffering for having engaged
in.

Mr. R. said he was not apprehensive of giving umbrage to any honest
merchant or fair trader, when he declared it as his opinion, that a
trade with France would not and could not be carried on at present but
by persons sinking under pecuniary embarrassments. Like gamblers upon
the threshold of ruin, they adventure and put at hazard the remnants of
their fortune to increase the chances of recovering what had been
previously lost. The trade, he also believed, was in a great degree
carried on for some time past by bankrupts, who, by means of bank
facilities, and other credits fraudulently obtained, were enabled to
speculate in a sea of danger and risk, into which they would not have
gone if they had had any thing to lose. In such a state of things, it
would be wise and expedient for Government to interfere, and say to the
merchants who are willing to continue trading with France, although you
may be disposed to continue this commerce, because it is carried on upon
a borrowed capital, and because it is insured in Europe, yet we will put
a stop to it, for we must take care of our sailors. When they are abused
and imprisoned, and their captains publicly whipped in French ports, it
is our duty to protect and preserve them from a continuance of such
injuries. Mr. R. concluded with observing, that the present bill would
occasion much distress to the French islands; would be the means of
preserving many of our vessels and seamen, and answer other very
valuable purposes. He hoped therefore it would pass.

Mr. OTIS said, as neither of the gentlemen who had spoken on this
subject had expressed an opinion which had a primary influence on his
mind, he would beg leave to declare it in a few words. It was
undoubtedly desirable, that this country should have a free commerce
with all the world; but, under our present circumstances, with relation
to France, no intercourse will be maintained with that country by the
fair American merchant. He will not venture his property either to
France, or to any of her dependencies. None but merchants who may have
exclusive privileges in the ports of France, will now carry on this
trade. He had no doubt that Citizen Hedouville, and other agents of the
Directory, would give exclusive privileges to a certain description of
dealers at the expense of the fair trader. Protections of this kind had
been given, he believed, to favorite traders in every considerable port
in the United States; and were not the proposed regulations to be
adopted, these persons would be growing fat and rich, while the whole
body of merchants would be suffering from the injustice and violence of
the French. He did not think it would be prudent to leave room for
encouragements of this kind to any of our citizens. For, while they are
in the habit of receiving large favors from the agents of the French
Government, they will be likely to feel a stronger attachment to the
interests of that country than of their own; and a stronger temptation
could not be offered to them than a monopoly of the French trade.

Mr. O. inquired whether, in a state of war, it was not usual and proper
for all nations to restrain their subjects from a direct trade with
their enemies? And are we not in war? Have we not passed a variety of
bills which gentlemen have declared amount to war? This very morning, a
bill has been passed, which, according to their construction, reaches
the climax of war measures. If, then, we are now in a state of war, it
will be inexpedient to continue to carry on this traffic. But, it is
said, if we restrain our own citizens, it will be carried on by neutral
nations. To a certain degree, it might be supposed that this would be
the case; but this is one of the losses incident to a state of war. We
must expect that a part of our carrying trade will be transferred to
neutrals for a time; but though this will affect the mercantile part of
the community, it will not wound the agricultural interest so deeply as
a total suspension of commerce. If neutral vessels come hither for
produce, the price will not fall so low as it otherwise would do, and
the farmers will be the better able to bear the burdens which a war must
necessarily lay upon them.

Mr. W. C. CLAIBORNE said, it was his intention to vote in favor of the
passage of this bill for two reasons. The first was, we have many
vessels and much property afloat on the ocean, which we cannot
adequately defend, and which is now constantly depredated upon. This
measure will keep many of our vessels at home. The second was, that it
would tend to increase our revenue, which at this time is a very
desirable thing; for he was of opinion, that the neutral powers of
Europe would become the carriers of our produce to the West Indies.
Denmark, Sweden, and the Dutch all possess islands in the West Indies in
the neighborhood of the French Islands, and if they come and fetch away
our produce, the duty on tonnage will be increased; and the duties
arising from imposts will not be lessened, as they will doubtless bring
with them the produce of Europe when they come out to this country.

The question on the passage of the bill was then taken, and stood--yeas
55, nays 25.


MONDAY, June 4.

Mr. MACON informed the House of the death of his colleague, Mr. BRYAN,
at nine o'clock this morning. The House, in consequence, entered into a
resolution appointing the members of North Carolina a committee to
manage the funeral of the deceased, and stating that the House do attend
the same. This committee afterwards reported that the funeral would take
place at nine o'clock in the morning.[35]


_Seditious Practices._

Mr. SEWALL, from the committee for the protection of commerce and the
defence of the country, reported a bill for the prevention and restraint
of dangerous and seditious practices, which was committed for Wednesday.

[This bill proposes, that any alien resident, or who shall come to
reside within the United States, who hath been convicted of any felony,
or other infamous crime, or who shall be a notorious fugitive from
justice, upon any charge of treasonable or seditious practices, in any
foreign State or country, or whose continuance within the United States
shall be, in the opinion of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
injurious to the public peace and safety, may be deemed and adjudged a
dangerous person, and may be required to depart from the country, and be
apprehended and removed therefrom. And if any person, whether alien or
citizen, shall secretly or openly combine, or conspire together, with an
intention of opposing any measures of the Government of the United
States, which are or shall be directed by the proper authority, or to
defeat the operation of any law of the United States, or to discourage
or prevent any person holding any place or office in or under the
Government of the United States, from undertaking or executing his trust
or duty; and if any person, with intent as aforesaid, shall by any
writing, printing, or advised speaking, threaten such officer or person
in public trust, with any danger to his character, person, or property,
or shall counsel or advise, or attempt to procure any insurrection,
riot, or unlawful assembly or combination as aforesaid, whether such
conspiring, &c., shall have the proposed effect or not, shall and may be
punished, upon the conviction of the offence, by a fine not exceeding
---- dollars, and by binding, with sufficient surety for good behavior,
or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding ---- years; and if the
person so convicted shall be an alien, he may be farther adjudged, in
lieu of such binding or imprisonment, to be banished and removed from
the territory of the United States.]


TUESDAY, June 5.

Mr. RUTLEDGE proposed a resolution to the following effect, which was
unanimously agreed to:

      "_Resolved_, That the members of this House, from a desire
      of showing their respect to the late Nathan Bryan, Esq.,
      member of this House, deceased, will go into mourning for
      one month, by wearing a crape on the left arm."


_Relations with France._

A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, as
follows:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives:_

      I now transmit to both Houses the communications from our
      Envoys at Paris, received since the last which have been
      presented by me to both Houses.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _June 5, 1798_.

The said Message, and communications referred to therein, were read, and
ordered to lie on the table.


WEDNESDAY, June 6.

Mr. ALLEN proposed a resolution to the following effect:

      "_Resolved_, That there shall be a call of the House at
      half past eleven o'clock every day on which the House shall
      sit during the present session."

Ordered to lie on the table.


_Relations with France._

Mr. D. FOSTER laid the following resolutions upon the table, viz:

      "Whereas the French Republic, regardless of those
      principles of good faith which ought to ensure a due
      observance of treaties, have, in various instances,
      violated the express stipulations of the treaties
      heretofore made and subsisting between the United States
      and the French nation, in a manner highly injurious to the
      interest and honor of the United States; by reason whereof
      the United States are released from all obligation on their
      part to respect the said treaties, or to consider
      themselves as holden or bound thereby.

      "_Resolved_, That it is expedient to make a Legislative
      declaration notifying the citizens of the United States,
      and all others concerned, that the said treaties are no
      longer obligatory upon the United States.

      "_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law,
      authorizing the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to grant
      letters of marque and reprisal against all ships and other
      vessels, with their cargoes, found on the high seas,
      sailing under the authority of the French Republic, or
      belonging to the said Republic, or any of the citizens
      thereof, or its dependencies; to continue and be in force
      until the French Government shall revoke and annul the
      orders and decrees authorizing the capture and detention of
      the vessels and property of the citizens of the United
      States, contrary to the laws of nations.

      "_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law
      granting a bounty, in proportion to the size and number of
      guns, on all armed vessels (which shall be taken and
      brought into any of the ports of the United States)
      belonging to the Republic of France, or to any of the
      citizens thereof, or of its dependencies, or to others
      sailing under the authority, or pretence of authority, from
      the said Republic."

They were ordered to lie upon the table.


FRIDAY, June 8.

_Letters of Marque, &c._

Mr. D. FOSTER then called up his resolutions relative to granting
general reprisals, letters of marque, &c., which, being read, he moved
to refer to the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and the Defence
of the Country, with power to report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. DAVIS hoped these resolutions would not be referred. It appeared
very strange to him that gentlemen should be desirous of taking this
step at present. He had heard much in this House about French parties,
and of gentlemen being attached to France, but he thought the House had
witnessed, not many minutes ago, something of another party, (referring
to the negative which had been put upon the resolution calling upon the
PRESIDENT for information respecting British depredations.) And yet,
when we have lately received information from France that peace is
probably yet within our grasp, a motion is brought forward which, if
adopted, would effectually shut out all hopes of a favorable termination
of our dispute. In the conclusion of the late despatches, he read as
follows:

      "As we were taking our leave of Mr. Talleyrand, we told him
      that two of us would return immediately, to receive
      instructions of our Government, if that would be agreeable
      to the Directory; if it was not, we would wait some time,
      in the expectation of receiving instructions."

So, that two of our Commissioners might be expected shortly to return,
to lay certain propositions before the Government here, or that they
will write for farther instructions; and, whilst these things are
pending, can a proposition like the present be justified? He thought
not. It was not, in his mind, a declaration of war; but it was evidently
a war measure. And when it is evident, from our Envoys' own showing,
that the negotiation between them and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in
France was in train on the 8th of March, the date of their last
despatches, as certain propositions had been made to them which were not
rejected, he thought it would be extremely imprudent to refer
resolutions of so hostile a kind as these certainly are. It would be
time enough, Mr. D. said, to adopt a measure of this kind when our
Envoys shall have informed us that peace is unattainable; but, whilst
they held up a contrary expectation, he could not consent to do any
thing which should cast wholly away the hope of preserving a state of
peace. With respect to the first resolution, which declares the treaty
between France and this country void, he had not much objection to it,
because it must be so considered from the laws already passed; but those
which respect the granting letters of marque and general reprisals, he
thought very objectionable indeed.

Mr. HARPER said, if the arguments of the gentleman from Kentucky were
well founded, he had not introduced them at the proper time. If he views
the state of our negotiation with France in the light which he had
placed it, his objections to this measure are natural and consistent;
but they ought to be made, when a bill is brought in, against its being
read a second time; or if the motion had now been to adopt the
resolutions instead of referring them, the remarks which he had made
would have been perfectly in order; but that gentleman must know that
there is a great difference between committing and agreeing to adopt a
resolution. He would confess that he, for one, should not now be ready
to agree to any of those propositions, though a fortnight hence he might
be willing to adopt them all. If the motion was, therefore, for
adopting, instead of referring them, he should move a postponement, or
the previous question, or take some other mode of disposing of them; but
when the motion was merely to refer them to a committee who might report
upon them immediately, or let them lie until farther information was
received from our commissioners; or, if they report a bill, that bill
might lie until gentlemen thought proper to pass upon it. He did not,
therefore, see any ground for the alarm which the gentleman from
Kentucky has shown. He confessed he could not look upon our negotiation
with France as in the happy train in which it appears to that gentleman.
He knew we might have peace, if we would consent to have our property
plundered _ad libitum_; or by paying a contribution to the full amount
of our ability to pay, which were the terms that Talleyrand and his
agents had offered to our Envoys; and this loan was made a _sine qua
non_ by Talleyrand. He could not tell, therefore, how the gentleman from
Kentucky could conceive the negotiation to be in good train, except he
is willing to pay the tribute which France demands from us.

Mr. VENABLE said, the gentleman last up had drawn a distinction between
committing these resolutions and agreeing to them, and had said that he
himself is not ready to agree to them. Mr. V. thought resolutions of
this kind ought not to be laid upon the table before the House is ready
to decide upon them, as the moment the foreign nation to which they have
reference hears that such resolutions have been brought forward, they
will take advantage of it, and seize all the property belonging to our
citizens within their power. If the resolutions are not proper,
therefore, to be adopted, they ought immediately to be rejected; for, if
this is not done, we may expect that not only all the property of our
citizens in French ports will be seized, but that all our vessels
without exception which can be met with will be taken. He hoped,
therefore, if gentlemen are of opinion with him that the time for taking
measures like the present is not yet arrived, that the reference would
be refused. It would do infinite mischief. We ought not, he said, to
show a spirit of this kind, until we are perfectly prepared to act. And
as he believed the House is better calculated to judge of the propriety
of thus changing the situation of the country, than any committee could
be, he should not choose to ask the opinion of the Committee for the
Protection of Commerce and the Defence of the Country what he should do
in this case.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS observed, that the gentleman from South Carolina seemed
to argue in favor of committing these resolutions, as if no time would
be so proper for doing so as the present. But he believed this House
would be equally capable of judging of this matter hereafter as at
present, and could act upon them in future as well as now. Why, then,
ought the House now to refer them, when even the gentleman from South
Carolina says he is not prepared to vote for them; but that if he were
called upon now to vote upon them, he should give his negative on the
question?

It appeared to him, Mr. W. said, that the reference of these resolutions
could have no other appearance than that of a challenge, and will
doubtless produce the consequences which have been mentioned by the
gentleman from Virginia. And however their vessels may have depredated
upon our commerce, and suffered their citizens to plunder us at sea,
they have not gone so far as to make it a national act to seize all the
property of our citizens within their power. He was, therefore, opposed
to this reference: for though, whenever the time of actual war shall
arrive, (for it seemed as if it must arrive,) we shall think it
necessary to do France all the mischief we can, yet he did not think it
would be prudent to tell them we mean to injure them in this or that way
beforehand.

Mr. HARRISON believed, that to refer these resolutions would be to give
them a degree of sanction; and as he looked upon the question as very
important, he should call for the yeas and nays upon it. They were
agreed to be taken.

Mr. GALLATIN said, it appeared to him that the committee to whom it is
proposed to refer these resolutions might, without this reference, have
brought the subject before the House, as they are appointed to consider
whatever relates to the protection of commerce and the defence of the
country. The reference must mean something more, therefore, than a mere
instruction to them to consider the subject, because they have already
those instructions given to them generally in their original
appointment. What, he asked, could be obtained by a vote on this
subject? He was at a loss to know. He could see no possible good to be
derived from it. He wished, indeed, the committee to whom it is proposed
to refer these resolutions, instead of doing the business committed to
them by piecemeal, in the manner which they had adopted, had laid before
the House at once a complete general plan of defence consistent with the
present situation of the country. A majority of this House seem not only
ready to take every defensive measure, but, in a certain degree,
offensive measures also. This having been once determined, the committee
might very well prepare such a plan. Such a plan would be more
consistent and uniform, than if individual members were left to bring
forward any measures which it may strike them as necessary to be taken.
Of what use, Mr. G. asked, had been the reference of a set of
resolutions made some days ago by Mr. SITGREAVES? No report has been
made upon them. A part of them were of the same nature with these, and
would authorize a report on this subject, if the committee had not the
general power already mentioned.

So far as any conclusion could be drawn from the despatches of our
Ministers, he confessed he had no great hopes of our negotiation with
France being concluded in an effectual manner. He saw a kind of
negotiation open between our Envoys and the French Minister for Foreign
Affairs. He saw that the latter had asked for a loan; a demand
inadmissible by our Envoys, since it was contrary to their instructions;
a demand inadmissible from any instructions they might hereafter
receive, for the sentiments of the Executive on that subject were well
known; and, he would add, a demand inadmissible in its very nature,
inadmissible in the opinion not only of this House, but of every
individual in the House. So that, as long as that demand was insisted
upon, no accommodation could be effected. But it must have been
remarked, in the late despatches, that when our Envoys inquired of Mr.
Talleyrand whether a loan of money was the ultimatum of the French
Government, he did not choose to give a direct answer. This shows it to
be possible that this demand may not be their ultimatum; and if not, as
we have heard it reported, (though not officially,) that one of our
Commissioners still remains in Paris, it would not be prudent to take
any step that would defeat any treaty which might be in contemplation.

Mr. W. CLAIBORNE hoped the motion for postponement would prevail, for,
though a reference of those resolutions would not be a complete sanction
of them, he should consider it as a prelude to a speedy adoption. His
observation on the past proceedings of the House justified this remark.

Mr. C. differed in opinion from the gentleman from North Carolina as to
the power of Congress with respect to treaties. He believed Congress has
a right to do away any treaty by a Legislative act; if not, he should
think he lived under the most miserable Government upon earth.

What, said Mr. C., is the nature of the injuries which we have received
from France? Have they not been wholly maritime? and have we not done
all we can conveniently do for the defence of our commerce? Was not all
our marine force already under such regulations as to be enabled to act
to great advantage in the prevention of future outrages on our commerce?
Why, then, shall we proceed to measures which must inevitably involve
the country in war? Will the adoption of these resolutions give us a
single ship or gun? No. Why, then, widen the breach between the two
countries, by acting upon a measure more replete with impolicy than any
act he ever saw introduced into that House. If it were adopted, it would
go to the destruction of our commerce with several of the great
commercial powers; for the moment war is declared with France, we shall
also be at war with Spain and Holland, her allies. And when a war with
Spain shall take place, the commerce of the Southern States and Western
country will be immediately gone, and all our vessels in French, Dutch,
or Spanish ports, will doubtless be confiscated. These, he said, were
evils which he foresaw would attend the adoption of these resolutions,
and he called upon the mover to show a single advantage which could be
derived from their adoption. He hoped, therefore, the question would be
postponed for a week; and if, at the end of that period, nothing shall
have transpired which will make their adoption proper, he trusted they
would then be farther postponed. If France is determined to have war
with us, we must and will defend ourselves; but he was desirous that no
act of ours should show that we ourselves wish for war.

Mr. SITGREAVES did not feel very solicitous whether the reference of
these resolutions should or should not be postponed for one week, as he
did not think so short a time would make any essential difference in the
state of things; but, as he knew no good purpose that could be answered
by the postponement, he should vote against it. He rose to offer his
reasons in favor of the reference, generally.

His colleague (Mr. GALLATIN) had fallen into two mistakes; he had said
that these resolutions are of the same nature with those which he (Mr.
SITGREAVES) had the honor, some days ago, to lay before the House; and
that the committee, to which the resolutions are proposed to be
referred, have, at present, all the power which this reference would
give them. He was not correct, in the first place, in saying that these
resolutions are of the same nature with those formerly submitted. The
former propositions suggested a course of special reprisal, in cases
limited and defined; the present propositions are for letters of general
marque and reprisal, which modes of proceeding are essentially different
in their nature and their incidents, in their theory and practice. The
present propositions, also, recommend a declaration on the subject of
the treaties, to which the former ones made no allusion. He believed his
colleague to be equally mistaken in his other assertion, that the
committee had already power to report to the extent of these
resolutions, if they should deem it expedient. Their general power was
to consider and report upon so much of the PRESIDENT'S Speech as relates
to the protection of commerce and defence of the country; and this
authority, when construed with relation to the Speech, cannot be
considered as going beyond the measures of defence, strictly compatible
with the neutral position in which we stood at the commencement of the
session; and could not, without an express reference, justify the
committee in proposing broad measures of hostility. This, however, is a
question of form merely. If the committee have already the power, the
reference proposed can do no mischief; if they have it not already, it
remains to inquire whether they ought not to have it. He conceived they
ought.

Mr. BALDWIN said, that nothing was more certain than that individual
members could not vote to refer a motion to a committee, as was now
proposed, unless at the time they feel themselves favorably disposed to
the object of the motion, and vote to refer it to a committee to further
that object, and to give it practicable shape and form. The gentleman
who had just sat down should reflect, that referring petitions is a
matter of course, and is established by usage as a respectful form of
receiving and hearing the applications of our fellow-citizens. The
introduction of a petition requires no second; but a motion made and
seconded, is to be regarded as a step in the actual operations of the
House. For himself he must say that, with respect to the present motion,
it required no time for him to be ready to declare, that he was not now
favorably disposed towards it, and could not, in any shape, now give it
his countenance and support.

When he reflected on what they had done in the small space of a few
weeks, and the course of measures which had been adopted by Congress
since the receipt of the despatches from our Envoys, he thought they had
come on, one upon another, in a succession sufficiently rapid. They
must, in their nature, greatly affect the state of the country, perhaps
more than was ever done before in so short a time. He thought it would
be wise in the House, at present, to make a short pause, before they
proceeded any further. It is a subject on which all Governments are apt
to err, and to proceed too rapidly. Let us, said he, take a little time
to ourselves, and give some time to our constituents, to look at our
interests, and the state of our public affairs, in the new posture which
we have given them in the course of a few weeks.

Our measures, he said, divided themselves into three classes; first, the
internal defence of our country and of our sea-coast. On this there had
been no difference of opinion; we had adopted, promptly, the same course
of measures which had been adopted a few years ago, when we were
threatened by another European power; we had fortified our ports and
harbors, fixed row-galleys and other vessels on our coast, and ordered a
draft of eighty thousand militia to hold themselves in constant
readiness; and ordered a million of dollars to be expended, in procuring
arms, cannon, and ammunition, to be placed all along the country in
proper situations, that they may be put into use by such of our
fellow-citizens as should be driven to the unfortunate necessity of
defending themselves by arms. He had been glad to see such a perfect
unanimity in those measures, and such a readiness, on all quarters, to
vote even larger sums than were recommended in the reports for these
purposes. This course of measures was founded on principles merely
defensive, and related only to our own country, and our own coast within
cannon shot from our shores, which, by the law of nations, is called our
territory; he trusted what had been done, accompanied with the spirit
and resolution of our countrymen, would render our country impregnable.

The second course of measures, which he said had also been adopted, was
extending our military preparations, and carrying our force beyond our
own jurisdiction, on the main ocean, to defend our commerce by convoys,
and to seek for and capture French privateers. On these the House had
not been unanimous; they had appeared to be founded on more questionable
policy; but, as the laws were passed, they would not only be cheerfully
submitted to, but as vigorously supported as the others; it was now his
duty to hope and expect that they would do more good than harm.

The third and last course of measures, was presented to our
consideration by the present motion, to put the country immediately
into an actual state of war. He must say he had been surprised to hear
it; he thought it very ill-timed; he must express upon it his utter
disapprobation. As had been already stated, the last official
information from our Envoys, showed that our negotiations were still
going on; and though the French Minister still insisted on a compulsory
loan, which our Ministers justly declared to be a very inadmissible
condition; yet, it ought to be noticed in the despatches that, when he
was asked by Mr. GERRY, if they were to consider him as insisting on a
loan as an ultimatum, he avoided the question, which gives reason to
believe that, as things then stood, a loan or war was not an absolute
inevitable alternative; it was such an alternative as he was not
disposed to take, so long as it was avoidable. Though our situation has
been, in many respects, bad for the year past, yet in a state of actual
war it will be much worse. He never turned his attention to the part of
the country where he lived, but that he felt himself compelled, by every
principle of duty to those whom he represented, to address and to urge
every consideration to avoid going to that extreme. They have been once
almost totally destroyed by war; they know, from their distance and from
past experience, that prompt and adequate protection never will be
extended to them. He believed no honest man, deliberating merely for the
public good, could take a view of the affairs of this country, of his
own home, and of his friends, and think of going into a state of war, if
it is possible to avoid it.

Mr. DANA hoped the gentleman from Georgia did not want to inquire of his
constituents whether they would consent to a treaty with France, in
which we shall bind ourselves to pay a tribute. He trusted if that
gentleman's constituents were thus to instruct him, he would refuse to
obey their instructions. He hoped no member of this House could be
prevailed with to set his hand to what would prove the death-warrant to
the liberties of the country. Mr. D. thought, therefore, that no
instructions were necessary on this subject; it is not a subject proper
for deliberation in the American Congress, and no other terms of
accommodation had been held out to us by that country. Does not Mr.
Talleyrand, said Mr. D., complain of the Farewell Address of General
Washington, and of the Speeches of Mr. Adams, and say that, before any
treaty can be entered upon with us, some proof of our friendly
disposition must be shown towards them, and that proof, he more than
insinuates, must be a loan, or a tribute to the extent of our capacity
to pay? If the despatches do not mean this, he did not know what they
mean; and when Mr. Talleyrand was asked whether this was the ultimatum
of the French Government, though he does not answer in direct terms, it
is clearly implied that it is so.

What, then, said Mr. D., are our hopes relative to France? Does any body
expect any thing from the terrible generosity of the Great Nation? Can
we expect any thing from their justice, or, rather, have we not every
thing to expect from their vengeance, if not prepared to meet it? Why do
gentlemen tell the House of the danger of irritating France? He thought
delicacy of this kind unnecessary, when speaking of a nation which has
set at defiance every moral principle, which has taken and is determined
to take our vessels, contrary to every principle of right. For himself,
he felt no such delicacy; and, therefore, he was in favor of referring
the resolutions under consideration. He did not think them so
notoriously wrong that they are not fit subjects for deliberation.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS wished to say a few words in reply to the remark which
had been made, that members who voted for the reference of resolutions,
generally vote for the resolution itself. He believed he could produce
twenty instances to the contrary, where references had been made, and
the measures themselves afterwards have been disagreed to. He should
give his vote in favor of the committal, because he wished to see the
principles of these resolutions detailed; but he by no means pledged
himself to vote for the passage of the bill.

The gentleman from Kentucky had spoken of two parties in this country,
but that the decision upon a resolution of this morning proved that
there is now a third party. He supposed the gentleman who had made the
motion alluded to would have given some reasons why it ought to be
agreed to; but not having done that, he voted against it.

[The SPEAKER reminded Mr. W. of the question.]

He then observed in reply to the remark of the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. R. WILLIAMS) with respect to treaties, that it was clear
from the writers on the laws of nations, that when one nation breaks a
treaty, it is no longer obligatory on the other party. But treaties are
nowadays done away, and power substituted in their place.

According to the opinion which gentlemen had themselves expressed,
Congress had already agreed to form different measures, which would
involve the country in war. If the present bill was passed (and he
doubted not it would be) it will be the fifth, though the gentleman from
Pennsylvania has said that this reference will give the Committee for
the Protection of Commerce and the Defence of the Country no new power,
and of course, in his opinion, it could make no difference whether these
resolutions are referred or not.

The yeas and nays were taken, and the question was negatived--42 to 41,
as follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, David
      Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran, William
      Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, William Edmond, Abiel
      Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn,
      Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove,
      Robert Goodloe Harper, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer,
      James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William
      Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker,
      John Read, John Rutledge, junior, James Schureman, Samuel
      Sewall, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel
      Smith, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson,
      Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and
      John Williams.

      NAYS.--George Baer, jun., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
      Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Stephen
      Bullock, Dempsey Burges, John Chapman, Thomas Claiborne,
      William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, Joshua Coit,
      Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Albert Gallatin,
      James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B.
      Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes,
      Walter Jones, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair
      McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New,
      Josiah Parker, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard
      Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, Robert Williams, and
      Matthew Locke.

Mr. SITGREAVES moved to postpone the consideration of these resolutions
for two weeks, which motion was seconded by Mr. J. PARKER.

Mr. VENABLE inquired whether it was in order to take any further
question upon the resolutions, the original motion having been
negatived.

The SPEAKER answered, that the question on reference having been
disagreed to, the resolutions themselves are now before the House.

Mr. VENABLE said, he had thought it was not in order to enter again upon
the consideration of these resolutions, after the question which had
been taken upon them. He knew that, to suffer them to lie on the table,
could have no effect upon the people of this country, but it might have
effect on the conduct of a foreign nation, as, when they heard such
resolutions were under consideration, and of course likely to be
adopted, they might anticipate their being carried into law, and proceed
to seize the property of our citizens in their ports. If this motion
were to be negatived, or withdrawn for the present, it might be brought
forward again, whenever gentlemen shall think it ought to be adopted. He
was as much opposed to the suspension, as he was against the reference
of these resolutions.

Mr. MACON hoped the consideration of these resolutions would not be
postponed. It was a little curious that a gentleman who was a few
minutes ago against a postponement for a week, was now become an
advocate for a postponement for a fortnight.

The SPEAKER said, the two questions were different.

Mr. RUTLEDGE rose to make this observation: That members opposed to the
former motion for postponement, when a mere question of reference was
under consideration, might with propriety be in favor of it when the
question comes to be final upon the resolution.

Mr. R. wished gentlemen to use their victory with moderation. He
believed the country was big with expectation that spirited measures
would be entered into. He did not believe they approved of the
half-measures which Congress took. Indeed, the countries which France
had overcome, had been overcome chiefly from their taking half-measures
while France had taken whole measures. He hoped the postponement would
be agreed to; as if the next advices from our Envoys are not more
favorable than the last were, he supposed there could be no hesitation
in agreeing to have these resolutions carried into effect, and to reject
them would have a mischievous effect.

Mr. LYON called for the yeas and nays on the question, but as one fifth
of the members present did not rise in favor of it, the question was not
carried.

Mr. DAVIS wished the mover to withdraw his resolution.

The question on postponement was put and carried--44 to 40.


_Alien Enemies, &c._

Mr. SEWALL, from the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and the
Defence of the Country, reported the bill respecting alien enemies,
newly modified, which was some days ago recommitted to the committee for
that purpose. Also, a bill authorizing merchant vessels to defend
themselves against French depredations. This bill authorizes the
commanders and crews of merchant vessels to oppose the attack or search
of any French armed vessel, and to repel any such search or attack by
force, and to capture the vessels making such attack. All such captures
to go--one-half to the owner of the vessel making the capture, and the
other half to the captors. No armed merchant vessel to be suffered to
clear out but such as is owned by citizens of the United States, who,
together with the commander, shall enter into bond that she shall not
commit any outrage against the vessels of any nation at amity with the
United States, and that said vessel shall not, during her voyage, carry
any articles contraband of war.

A bill was received from the Senate entitled "An act concerning aliens."
This bill goes to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to order
all such aliens as he shall deem dangerous to the United States to
depart out of its territory; and if, after such order, any such alien
shall be found at large, he shall be imprisoned for three years, and for
ever after deprived of the privilege of becoming a citizen of the United
States. And if any alien shall return to this country, after he shall
have been sent out of it, he shall be imprisoned and kept to hard labor
for life. And all commanders of vessels who shall arrive in any of the
ports of the United States after the 1st day of July next, shall make a
report in writing of all aliens who shall come passengers on board their
vessels, giving an account of their age, profession, description of
their person, &c., on pain of forfeiting three hundred dollars.

These bills were severally made the order of the day for Monday.


SATURDAY, June 9.

Mr. J. PARKER moved that the bills, with the amendments of the Senate to
them, for altering the time of entering stills, and for the more
effectual collection of the internal revenues, be referred to a select
committee. Agreed to.

The House spent the remainder of the day principally in going through a
very long bill to provide for the valuation of lands and dwelling
houses, and the enumeration of slaves within the United States,
previously to the laying a direct tax on them. The bill was gone through
in the Committee of the Whole, without any debate of consequence, except
as to what related to filling the blanks intended to contain the amount
to be appropriated for carrying the law into execution, the salary of
the Commissioners, Assessors, &c. The committee had leave to sit again.
No other business of importance was done this day.


MONDAY, June 11.

Mr. HARPER, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill
providing for the enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States;
which was committed for Wednesday.


WEDNESDAY, June 13.

_Direct Taxes._

The bill providing for the valuation of houses and lands and the
enumeration of slaves within the United States, was then read the third
time, and upon the question being put "Shall this bill pass?"

Mr. DAVIS said, he was under the necessity of opposing the passage of
this bill. No part of the community would contribute more cheerfully, to
the extent of their ability, to the support of the General Government,
than his constituents; but, from the knowledge he had of their
situation; of the scarcity of circulating medium amongst them; and from
the want of a market for their surplus produce, he could not give his
vote in favor of a tax, which it would be with great difficulty they
would be able to pay. The people of Kentucky, he said, had produce of
every kind, in abundance, but they want a market for it. The Mississippi
had lately promised a medium through which to transport it, but as yet,
little advantage has been derived from it; and whenever a war shall take
place, it may be expected that they would be deprived of the advantages
which the free navigation of that river promises to the Western country.

Mr. D. said, when he came from home he did not think the coin in
circulation, in Kentucky, amounted to $10,000; and, since that period,
he was informed that money had become still more scarce. If he thought
the tax would be paid without great difficulty he would have cheerfully
voted for it; but believing the contrary, he was constrained to give his
vote against it.

Mr. W. CLAIBORNE said, the people of Tennessee are, in a great degree,
similarly situated with those of Kentucky. Every one enjoyed the
necessaries of life, but few of them experience those conveniences which
flow from wealth. Money is a scarce article amongst them; and when he
reflected upon the present situation of things, and the probability
there is, that the avenue which was lately opened for the disposal of
the surplus produce of the State would soon be closed, he feared his
constituents would be illy able to pay this tax. But if, as the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. MACON) on a former occasion
suggested, he should be mistaken in this respect, and that the people of
Tennessee are well able to pay the tax, he should rejoice in the event.
Fearing the contrary, however, when he heard the people complaining of
this grievous burden, he wished to have the consolation of saying, "I
did not consent to this law, because I was of opinion that its operation
would be particularly oppressive to the Western people."

Mr. GALLATIN observed, it would be extremely difficult to point out any
mode of taxation which will not be inconvenient and oppressive, in some
degree, for some part of the people to pay; and it must be expected that
every mode which can be adopted, will bear more hardly on some parts of
the community than on others. With respect to the tax on land, he must
agree with the gentleman from Kentucky and Tennessee, that, from there
being a less quantity of circulating medium in their States than any
other State of the Union, it would probably fall heavier upon their
constituents than upon people of the Atlantic States. But there is one
circumstance with respect to those States which ought to be taken into
consideration, viz: that the tax for this year will be laid according to
the old census taken seven or eight years ago; since which time, it is
well known that the population of these States has more than doubled.
Therefore, the inconvenience of paying this tax will be greatly lessened
to these States by that circumstance. In the State of Tennessee, by the
old census taken in 1791, there were only 35,000 inhabitants, whereas,
by a census taken in that State by themselves, two years ago, the number
exceeded 60,000.

Besides, it appeared to him that both the gentlemen assumed a principle
by no means ascertained, viz: that the Mississippi will be shortly
closed to the Western country. No people could suffer more by such an
event than the people whom he himself represented. They stood precisely
in the situation of the constituents of those gentlemen; and
undoubtedly, if our present difficulties with France should produce a
war with Spain, it would be extremely fatal to his constituents as well
as theirs. But he knew of no reason for supposing this; and it would be
wrong to legislate on a presumption that such will be the case.

In relation to this law, it was not formed, Mr. G. said, altogether to
his wish; but it was as nearly so as he could get it, and it was
necessary the money should be raised. He had opposed, as long and as
forcibly as he was able, most of the measures which made the great
expenses of the present session necessary; but a majority having
determined that the expense shall be incurred, and that measures shall
be taken which will necessarily decrease our present revenue, it has
become the duty of every member to provide the means for paying the
expense to be incurred, and for supplying the probable deficiencies of
former revenues.

If the expense is to be provided for, how is it to be done? It must be
either by taxation or by loans. Indeed, it is probable that Congress
will be obliged to resort to loans, even during the present session; but
certainly it is their duty, as far as they are able, to provide for the
public expenses, without going into measures which will increase the
public debt. Our choice lies, therefore, between loans and taxation; and
however inconvenient it may be to the people to pay taxes, he should
certainly resort to taxes rather than loans. And if the money is to be
raised by taxes, to what objects can we turn our attention? Congress
must have recourse to internal revenue, or an increase of duty on the
importation of some of the necessaries of life. Indeed, after turning
his attention very seriously to the subject, he could not find how any
considerable revenue could be raised, but by means of a direct tax on
land and houses, or a tax on salt. He did not think any other could be
relied upon; and, between the two, he believed it would be infinitely
better, both for the United States and his constituents, to lay a tax on
land and houses than on salt. The tax on land and houses will be laid
according to the value of the property; and though there is less
circulating medium in the back country, which is thinly settled, than in
the larger towns, the property in those parts will be estimated at a
much lower rate, and of course the people will have a smaller proportion
of the tax to pay; and he thought it far preferable to lay a tax which
would fall, in a great degree, upon persons according to their wealth,
than one which would operate as a _poll tax_, (as a tax on salt would
do,) according to their number.

Mr. DAVIS said, he believed he could prove to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) that his conclusions with respect to the
ability of the people of the State of Kentucky to pay this tax, were not
altogether correct; and that the number of the people inhabiting the
State now, being double what it was when the last census was taken, will
afford them no relief. For, if there were $10,000 in circulation in the
State, when there were only 30,000 inhabitants, and no more, now there
are 150,000--the tax would fall no lighter now than it would have fallen
then. How, it might be inquired, does it happen that, though the
population is so greatly increased, no increase should have been made in
the quantity of circulating specie? It happens thus: Men who emigrate
from the Atlantic States to this country, seldom bring much money with
them; for, whatever they may have when they set out, it is expended on
their journey, or paid for land to a single person when they reach us,
so that none of their money comes into general circulation and though
the people are able to raise plenty of produce, they are not able to
exchange it for money. It is true, the more inhabitants they get, the
more the general property of the State is increased, but it did not
increase the circulating medium. He did not believe there is now so much
money in circulation as there was when the census was taken. There was
then an army there, and produce sold for a good price; but since a peace
was made with the Indians, money has been constantly draining off from
the State, to pay the debts which the merchants of that State had
contracted whilst trade was brisk in this and other cities.

Mr. S. SMITH did not think the fears of the gentlemen from Kentucky and
Tennessee would be realized. It is no doubt true that the quantity of
circulating specie in Kentucky had diminished since the peace with the
Indians; but it is also true that the spring trade this year from
Kentucky by the Mississippi has been both great and profitable. But
gentlemen suppose, if we have a war with France, we shall also be at war
with Spain, and our intercourse by that river will be cut off. But the
interest of Spain will be against this; for in case of war, there will
be great difficulty in getting flour to the Havana from the Atlantic
ports, as our West India trade will be cut off, and they will have to
depend upon a supply by the Mississippi. Besides, if produce be so much
cheaper in the Western country than in the Atlantic States, as it has
been stated to be, it will become the interest of neutrals in the
Atlantic cities, to make remittances by produce from that country to the
Havana. And if Spain should be drawn into the war, there would be other
modes of the people of those States disposing of their produce. He did
not think, therefore, gentlemen from that country need be so much
alarmed as they appeared to be.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS had always been opposed to every system of direct taxes;
but as a majority of the House had agreed to call forth the resources of
the country by this means, he must give his vote for this bill. He was
astonished to find the gentlemen from Kentucky and Tennessee opposing
this bill, when so much of the money of the General Government had been
expended in that country. They must acknowledge their States have had
their portion of specie from the Treasury of the United States. An act
had indeed been passed during the present session for paying a company
of militia for a certain expedition in Tennessee, which amounted to
nearly one fourth of the whole sum required from that State. He believed
some of the troops of the United States are also now there, and likely
to continue, so that they are constantly receiving supplies of cash from
the Treasury of the United States. Besides, it ought to be considered
that this tax will fall upon unimproved, as well as improved land, many
of the owners of which, he supposed, lived out of that State, which
would reduce the portion of the tax to the State. The district in which
he lived would pay more tax than the whole State of Tennessee. He knew
the tax would be collected in some places with difficulty, and more so,
since the bill had undergone a change which had thrown the tax upon land
more than it would otherwise have fallen.

But, whatever difficulty may attend the collection of this tax, when we
see the ruinous effects of public debt in other countries, we ought to
be cautious how we make extensive loans, and endeavor to draw forth the
resources of the country, to meet any of the expenses which we may have
to encounter.

Mr. VARNUM should vote against this bill. He had always thought, since
the establishment of the present Government, that there would be no
necessity for resorting to direct taxes, except in case of our being
engaged in war. He believed the measures already taken would not require
a direct tax if no further expenses were contemplated. But he now
believed a majority of the Government of the United States are
determined on war, and he would, on that account, have given his vote
for the bill, if the tax was proposed to be laid on just and equal
principles. It was his opinion, that every species of property ought to
be taxed, as well as houses and land. So far from this being the case,
he believed that between one third and one half of the property taxed by
the State Legislatures, in their system of direct taxes, would, by the
present plan, be excused altogether from tax. Some of the most wealthy
people in the Union would, by this means, be untaxed, in a great degree,
while persons who hold a small property in houses or land, will bear the
burden of it; and not only of this tax, but to any further extent to
which the Government may have occasion to carry it.

Mr. T. CLAIBORNE had opposed many of the measures which made this tax
necessary; but a majority of Congress having determined upon a certain
course of measures, however contrary they may be to his opinion, he
should cheerfully submit to them, and vote in favor of this bill.

The people of Virginia, if they must be taxed, wished to be taxed in a
direct way, and he doubted not this tax would be paid with alacrity.
They always had been, and would continue to be, he had no doubt, prompt
in their obedience to the laws of the General Government.

The yeas and nays were then taken upon the passing of the bill; it was
passed--69 votes to 19.

_Resolved_, That the title be, "An act to provide for the valuation of
lands and dwelling houses, and the enumeration of slaves, within the
United States."


THURSDAY, June 21.

_Relations with France._

In the course of the sitting, the following Message was received from
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives:_

      While I congratulate you on the arrival of General
      Marshall, one of our late Envoys Extraordinary to the
      French Republic, at a place of safety, where he is justly
      held in honor, I think it my duty to communicate to you a
      letter received by him from Mr. Gerry, the only one of the
      three who has not received his congé. This letter, together
      with another from the Minister of Foreign Relations to him,
      of the third of April, and his answer of the fourth, will
      show the situation in which he remains, his intentions and
      prospects.

      I presume that, before this time, he has received fresh
      instructions, (a copy of which accompanies this message,)
      to consent to no loan, and therefore the negotiation may be
      considered as at an end.

      I will never send another Minister to France, without
      assurances that he will be received, respected, and
      honored, as the representative of a great, free, powerful,
      and independent nation.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _June 21, 1798_.

                          PARIS, _April 16, 1798_.

      MY DEAR SIR: This, I expect, you will receive by my
      colleague, General Marshall, who carries with him the last
      letter of Mr. Talleyrand to the American Envoys, and their
      answer. On the day when we sent the answer, I received a
      letter from the Minister, a copy of which and my answer is
      enclosed. I have not sent these to the Secretary of State,
      because I have not time to prepare a letter to accompany
      them. Indeed, I expected my passport with my colleagues,
      but am informed the Directory will not consent to my
      leaving France; and to bring on an immediate rupture, by
      adopting this measure contrary to their wishes, would be,
      in my mind, unwarrantable.

      The object of Mr. Talleyrand, you will perceive, was to
      resume our reciprocal communications, and again to discuss
      the subject of a loan. I thought it best, in my answer, not
      merely to object to this, but to every measure, that could
      have a tendency to draw me into a negotiation. I accepted
      of this mission, my dear sir, to support your
      Administration, and have brought myself into a
      predicament,[36] which you must assist me to extricate
      myself from, by appointing some others to supply the places
      of myself and colleagues, if a further progress in this
      business should be found practicable.

      I have only a moment to add my best respects to your lady,
      and my assurance of the most sincere and respectful
      attachment. My dear sir, yours, sincerely,

                          E. GERRY.

      The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.


[TRANSLATION.]

      PARIS, _the 4th Germinal, 6th year of the French Republic,
      one and indivisible, April 3, 1798_.

      The Minister of Foreign Relations to Mr. Gerry, Envoy
      Extraordinary of the United States of America to the French
      Republic.

      I suppose, sir, that Messrs. Pinckney and Marshall have
      thought it useful and proper, in consequence of the
      intimations given in the end of my note of the 28th Ventose
      last, and the obstacles which their known opinions have
      interposed to the desired reconciliation, to quit the
      territory of the Republic; on this supposition, I have the
      honor to point out to you the 5th or the 7th of this
      decade, to resume our reciprocal communications upon the
      interests of the French Republic and the United States of
      America.

      Receive, I pray you, the assurances of my perfect
      consideration.

                          CH. MAU. TALLEYRAND.


MONDAY, June 25.

_Alien Enemies._

On motion of Mr. S. SMITH, the House went into a Committee of the Whole
on the bill respecting alien enemies. The Chairman stated, that when
this bill was formerly under consideration, a motion was made to strike
out the first section, which was negatived. He proceeded to read the
second.

Mr. OTIS hoped the committee would rise. He made this motion with a view
of moving, in the House, a postponement of the consideration of this
bill until the next session of Congress. He did not know that there was
any immediate necessity for it, the PRESIDENT having sufficient power
over aliens by the bill already passed.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he did not expect a motion of this kind. If any bill
respecting aliens was necessary, it was certainly a bill of this kind
against alien enemies; but a bill having been passed against aliens
generally, the gentleman from Massachusetts appears now to be willing to
pass by the bill against alien enemies. This gives a new coloring to the
business, and it seems as if gentlemen were more desirous of guarding
against alien friends than alien enemies. It is true, if this bill is
not passed, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES will have the power of
removing from the country all those aliens whom he may think it
necessary and proper to be removed, whether they are alien enemies or
alien friends. But, if alien enemies are really dangerous, it cannot be
supposed that the PRESIDENT can remove them all. This bill, therefore,
provides in what manner they may be laid under certain restraints by way
of security.

Mr. OTIS interrupted Mr. G. to say he would withdraw his motion. He made
it, because he expected the bill would have been objected to by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania and his friends. Since they were agreeable
to pass it, he had no objection to it.

The committee rose and reported the bill, and it was ordered to be read
a third time to-morrow.


THURSDAY, July 5.


_Punishment of Crime._


SEDITION.

A bill was received from the Senate in addition to the act for the
punishment of certain crimes against the United States, which was read
the first time.

[This bill provides, that if any persons shall unlawfully combine or
conspire together, with intent to oppose any measures of the Government
of the United States, or to impede the operation of any law, or to
intimidate or prevent any person holding an office under the Government
from exercising his trust. And if any person shall, by writing,
printing, or speaking, threaten such officer with any damage to his
character, person, or estate, or shall counsel, advise, or attempt to
procure any insurrection, riot, &c., whether such attempt shall have the
desired effect, or not, he shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor,
and punished by a fine, on conviction, not exceeding $5,000, and by
imprisonment not less than six months, nor exceeding five years. And if
any person shall, by any libellous or scandalous writing, printing,
publishing, or speaking, traduce or defame the Legislature of the United
States, by seditious or inflammatory declarations or expressions, with
intent to create a belief in the citizens thereof, that the said
Legislature in enacting any law, was induced thereto by motives hostile
to the constitution, or liberties and happiness of the people thereof;
or shall in manner aforesaid, traduce or defame the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, or any Court, or Judge thereof, by declarations tending
to criminate their motives in any official transaction, the persons so
offending, being convicted shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
$2,000 and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.]

Mr. OTIS moved that it be read a second time.

Mr. HARRISON called for the reading of the amendments to the
constitution.

The SPEAKER said, the only motion in order, if objections were made to
the second reading of the bill, would be to reject the bill.

Mr. LIVINGSTON made that motion.

Mr. ALLEN.--I hope this bill will not be rejected. If ever there was a
nation which required a law of this kind, it is this. Let gentlemen look
at certain papers printed in this city and elsewhere, and ask themselves
whether an unwarrantable and dangerous combination does not exist to
overturn and ruin the Government by publishing the most shameless
falsehoods against the Representatives of the people of all
denominations, that they are hostile to free Governments and genuine
liberty, and of course to the welfare of this country; that they ought,
therefore, to be displaced, and that the people ought to raise an
_insurrection_ against the Government.

In the _Aurora_, of the 28th of June last, we see this paragraph: "It is
a curious fact, America is making war with France for _not_ treating, at
the very moment the Minister for Foreign Affairs fixed upon the very day
for opening a negotiation with Mr. GERRY. What think you of this,
Americans!"

Such paragraphs need but little comment. The public agents are charged
with crimes, for which, if true, they ought to be hung. The intention
here is to persuade the people that peace with France is in our power;
nay, that she is sincerely desirous of it, on proper terms, but that we
reject her offers, and proceed to plunge our country into a destructive
war.

This combination against our peace is extensive; it embraces characters
whose stations demand a different course. Is this House free from it?
Recollect what a few days ago fell from the very gentleman (Mr.
LIVINGSTON) who now so boldly and violently calls on us to reject this
bill at the instant of its coming before us, without suffering it to be
read a second time. The gentleman proposed a resolution requesting the
PRESIDENT to instruct Mr. Gerry to conclude a treaty with the French
Government; and declared that "he believed a negotiation might be
opened, and that it was probable a treaty might be concluded which it
would be honorable to the United States to accept. He did not wish to
frustrate so happy an event by any punctilio, because they had refused
to treat with three Envoys, but were willing to treat with one." This is
in the very spirit of the malicious paragraph I just now read. It is
pursuing the same systematic course of operations. The gentleman also
said, (what has not been published, however,) that "the commission of
the Envoys being joint and several, Mr. Gerry had unquestionably ample
powers to treat alone." Here are circumstances of what I call _a
combination against the Government_, in attempts to persuade the people
of certain facts, which a majority of this House, at least, and of the
people at large, I believe, know to be unfounded. Who can say that Mr.
Gerry has power to treat alone, or that the French Government is willing
to treat with him on fair and honorable terms? Gentlemen do not believe
either, let them say what they will. Does such a commission empower one
to exercise the functions of the whole in opposition to the opinions of
his colleagues? It would produce the most inextricable confusion. The
severalty of the powers is well known always to be a provision against
such accidents as may prevent or disable a part of the Commissioners
from acting. I mention these things to show what false ideas gentlemen
endeavor to impress the public mind with on this subject.

The gentleman (Mr. LIVINGSTON) makes his proclamation of war on the
Government in the House on Monday, and this infamous printer (Bache)
follows it up with the tocsin of insurrection on Tuesday. While this
bill was under consideration in the Senate, an attempt is made to render
it odious among the people. "Is there any alternative," says this
printer, "between an abandonment of the constitution and resistance?" He
declares what is unconstitutional, and then invites the people to
"resistance." This is an awful, horrible example of "the liberty of
opinion and freedom of the press." Can gentlemen hear these things and
lie quietly on their pillows? Are we to see all these acts practised
against the repose of our country, and remain passive? Are we bound hand
and foot that we must be witnesses of these deadly thrusts at our
liberty? Are we to be the unresisting spectators of these exertions to
destroy all that we hold dear? Are these approaches to revolution and
Jacobinic domination, to be observed with the eye of meek submission?
No, sir, they are indeed terrible; they are calculated to freeze the
very blood in our veins. Such liberty of the press and of opinion is
calculated to destroy all confidence between man and man; it leads to a
dissolution of every bond of union; it cuts asunder every ligament that
unites man to his family, man to his neighbor, man to society, and to
Government. God deliver us from such liberty, the liberty of vomiting on
the public floods of falsehood and hatred to every thing sacred, human,
and divine! If any gentleman doubts the effects of such a liberty, let
me direct his attention across the water; it has there made slaves of
thirty millions of men.

At the commencement of the Revolution in France those loud and
enthusiastic advocates for liberty and equality took special care to
occupy and command all the presses in the nation; they well knew the
powerful influence to be obtained on the public mind by that engine; its
operations are on the poor, the ignorant, the passionate, and the
vicious; over all these classes of men the freedom of the press shed its
baneful effects, and they all became the tools of faction and ambition,
and the virtuous, the pacific, and the rich, were their victims. The
Jacobins of our country, too, sir, are determined to preserve in their
hands the same weapon; it is our business to wrest it from them. Hence
this motion so suddenly made, and so violently supported by the mover,
to reject this bill without even suffering it to have a second reading;
hence this alarm for the safety of "the freedom of speech and of the
press."

Mr. HARPER said, if, in voting against the rejection of this bill, his
vote should be considered as giving his assent to all its provisions, it
would be misunderstood. He thought it right and necessary to make a law
on the subject; but not exactly such a law as the present, his
particular objections to which he should make known when the subject was
fully before him. He should vote against a rejection of the bill,
because to vote for it, would be to declare that no law ought to be
passed to restrict seditious writing and speaking, which was not his
opinion.

He had often heard in this place, and elsewhere, harangues on the
liberty of the press, as if it were to swallow up all other liberties;
as if all law and reason, and every right, human and divine, was to fall
prostrate before the liberty of the press; whereas, the true meaning of
it is no more than that a man shall be at liberty to print what he
pleases, provided he does not offend against the laws, and not that no
law shall be passed to regulate this liberty of the press. He admitted
that a law which should say a man shall not slander his neighbor would
be unnecessary; but it is perfectly within the constitution to say, that
a man shall not do this, or the other, which shall be injurious to the
well-being of society; in the same way that Congress had a right to make
laws to restrain the personal liberty of man, when that liberty is
abused by acts of violence on his neighbor.

Mr. H. knew the liberty of the press had been carried to a very
considerable extent in this country. He had frequently seen private
character vilely calumniated; he had himself come in for a share of
abuse, but he had always despised the base calumniators, believing that
a man's propriety of conduct would always be sufficient to shield him
against these slanders. When he saw the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
and the Government of the Union defamed, he still despised them, and he
believed also that the people were not affected by them, because he saw
they did not rise in insurrection against the Government; and if they
had not believed that all the things which were said respecting the
Government were vile falsehoods, he should have thought the people the
most wretched fools, had they not risen against it.

Mr. NICHOLAS was sorry this motion had been made, because it prevents
members from going into the modification of the bill, which he was
convinced would completely exemplify the folly of the principle; but
until gentlemen saw what form the bill was finally to take, it was
impossible to speak with precision on its merits; because if the
declarations of the gentlemen from Connecticut and South Carolina were
attended to, it would be found they are most afraid of the speeches and
letters of gentlemen in this House. They acknowledge, however, they
cannot prevent members from speaking what they please here. What, then,
is their aim? Do they mean to prevent the publication of their
sentiments to their constituents and to the world? If this was not their
intention, he could not tell what it was.

There was one general view of this subject, which Mr. N. took to be the
most momentous that this country ever saw. He was ready to go with
gentlemen into measures for affording a liberal support to the war,
which it appears must be gone into; but he was not ready to create a
_domestic tyranny_. The people of this country are competent judges of
their own interests, and he was desirous that the press should remain
perfectly free to give them every information relative to them; and to
restrict it, would be to create a suspicion that there is something in
our measures which ought to be kept from the light. It was striking at
the root of free republican Government, to restrict the use of speaking
and writing. He wished, however, to see the bill put into such a shape
as the friends of it themselves might approve.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, after receiving the chastisement of the gentleman
from Connecticut on one cheek, he, like a good Christian, had turned
the other to the gentleman from South Carolina, and received the stripes
of both. He expressed his acknowledgments to these gentlemen, however,
if not for their chastisement, for the insight which they had given the
House into this bill. They have said, its design is not only to restrict
the liberty of the press, which is secured by the constitution, but the
liberty of speech on this floor. The gentleman from South Carolina did
not say explicitly that he wished this; but he said he was regardless of
what was said in the public papers, either of private or personal
slander, or of a slander on the Government, until he heard a certain
speech delivered in this House; and though he said he did not intend to
restrict the liberty of speech in this House, he must have had something
of the kind in view. [Mr. HARPER said it was not his intention to
restrict the freedom of speech on that floor, but the consequences of it
out of doors.] Then, said Mr. L., he will either restrict the members
from speaking, or, in some way, prevent the people from knowing what has
been said. How is this to be done? By shackling newspapers, and
preventing that free communication of sentiment which has heretofore
been expressed on public topics.

The gentleman from Connecticut had been pleased to read a quotation from
some observations which he had made on a former occasion, which that
gentleman thought highly blamable. Mr. L. said, what he had read he
avowed to be his sentiments. He avowed them with pride, and he trusted
he should always avow them with pride. Nor could he see how acts made
contrary to the constitution could be binding upon the people; unless
gentlemen say Congress may act in contravention to the constitution.
[Mr. OTIS asked who were to be the judges?] Mr. L. answered, the people
of the United States. We, said he, are their servants, when we exceed
our powers, we become their _tyrants_!

This is one object of complaint; the other is against newspaper
publications. The gentleman from South Carolina has said, that provided
the law is clear and well defined, and the trial by jury is preserved,
he knew of no law which could infringe the liberty of the press. If this
be true, Congress might restrict all printing at once. We have, said he,
nothing to do but to make the law precise, and then we may forbid a
newspaper to be printed, and make it death for any man to attempt it!

If this be the extent to which this bill goes, it is not only an
abridgment of the liberty of the press, which the constitution has said
shall not be abridged; but it is a total annihilation of the press. Were
he then to withdraw his motion, he should consider himself guilty of
treason; by his consent, so unconstitutional a measure should not
progress an inch. However unsuccessful he might be, he would oppose it
in every stage.

Mr. OTIS supposed the opposition to this bill arose chiefly from
prejudice, as gentlemen could not be so well acquainted with the bill
from hearing it once read, as to say there are no parts of it which
ought to become law. He had not nicely examined the merits of this bill,
but he heard that it contained several important provisions, and he
should certainly be opposed to a rejection of it without a perusal. To
vote for such a motion, would be to say, we will not examine the bill;
and yet he believed there was nothing in it contrary to the common law
of the several States of the Union.

Mr. MACON had no doubt on his mind that this bill was in direct
opposition to the constitution; and that if a law like this was passed,
to abridge the liberty of the press, Congress would have the same right
to pass a law making an establishment of religion, or to prohibit its
free exercise, as all are contained in the same clause of the
constitution; and, if it be violated in one respect, it may as well be
violated in others. Several laws had been passed which he thought
violated the spirit, but none before this which directly violated the
letter of the constitution; and, if this bill was passed, he should
hardly think it worth while in future to allege against any measure that
it is in direct contradiction to the constitution.

Laws of restraint, like this, Mr. M. said, always operate in a contrary
direction from that which they were intended to take. The people suspect
something is not right, when free discussion is feared by government.
They know that truth is not afraid of investigation.

If, said Mr. M., the people are so dissatisfied with Government as some
gentlemen would have it believed, but which he did not credit, by
passing a law like the present you will force them to combine together;
they will establish corresponding societies throughout the Union, and
communications will be made in secret, instead of publicly, as had been
the case in other countries. He believed the people might be as safely
trusted with free discussion, as they whom they have chosen to do their
business.

It was a most extraordinary thing, Mr. M. said, that at a time like
this, when some gentlemen say we are at war, and when all believe we
must have war, that Congress are about to pass a law which will produce
more uneasiness, more irritation, than any act which ever passed the
Legislature of the Union.

No gentleman, in support of the bill, has gone into the constitutional
question; no one has shown what part of the constitution will authorize
the passage of a law like this. He believed none such could be adduced.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS) has said, this bill is
conformable to the common law. He knew persons might be prosecuted for a
libel under the State Governments; but if this power exists in full
force at present, what necessity can there be for this bill?

Mr. MCDOWELL was in hopes that when the third article of the amendments
to the constitution had been read, that the unconstitutionality of this
bill would have been so evident, that it would have been rejected
without debate.

Mr. McD. was sorry that the gentleman from Connecticut should have
thought it necessary to have taken up so much of the time of the House
by reading paragraphs from newspapers, which every body had seen; but it
might have been expected after the gentleman had taken so much pains to
vilify and abuse the printer of one of the papers of this city, a
citizen of respectable character and connections, that he should have
taken at least some notice of another, called the British printer, who
boasts of being a subject of King George, and who is generally supposed
to be in the pay of the British Minister--whose paper contains more
libels and lies than any other in the United States, and who,
notwithstanding, is countenanced by characters whom he was sorry to see
have any connection with such a man; whose constant daily business it is
to abuse, and render ridiculous, every member of our Government who does
not in every thing fall in with the British views.

As to what had been said with respect to the circular and other letters
of members which have been published, he had seen some of them and heard
of others. It was not any thing which the gentleman from South Carolina
could say, which would prevent him from speaking and writing his
sentiments freely. The gentleman from South Carolina said he had seen a
letter in the papers the signature of which he knew. He should be glad
to know where he saw the signature to know it? He had seen a letter in
Fenno's paper, signed _McDowell_, followed by some violent strictures on
the letter, and on the author. The letter he owned to be his, but the
insinuations contained in the observations upon it were as false as they
were malicious.

Mr. HARPER said, he knew the gentleman wrote the letter in question; but
he would assure him he did not see it under seal, nor did he break the
seal, or write the strictures upon it.

Mr. GALLATIN wished that the bill had been committed before any debate
had taken place, as in its present stage, any observations on details
susceptible of amendment would be out of order; and he must now confine
himself to the general question "Does the situation of the country, at
this time, require that any law of this kind should pass? Do there exist
such new and alarming symptoms of sedition, as render it necessary to
adopt, in addition to the existing laws, any extraordinary measure for
the purpose of suppressing unlawful combinations, and of restricting the
freedom of speech and of the press?" For such were the objects of the
bill, whatever modifications it might hereafter receive.

The manner in which the principle of the bill had been supported, was
perhaps more extraordinary still than the bill itself. The gentleman
from Connecticut, (Mr. ALLEN,) in order to prove the existence of a
combination against the constitution and government, he communicated to
the House--what? a number of newspaper paragraphs; and even most of
those were such as would not be punishable by the bill as it now stands.
The object of that gentleman in wishing a bill of this nature to pass,
extended far beyond the intention of the Senate who had sent down this
bill; far beyond, he would venture to say, the idea of any other member
upon this floor, besides himself. His idea was to punish men for stating
facts which he happened to disbelieve, or for enacting and avowing
opinions, not criminal, but perhaps erroneous. Thus one of the
paragraphs most obnoxious to the gentleman from Connecticut, was that in
which the writer expresses his belief that Mr. Gerry may yet make a
treaty with the French Government, his powers being sufficient for that
purpose. [Mr. ALLEN said, his charge was against persons making this
assertion, when they knew it to be unfounded.] Mr. G. said, he did not
understand the gentleman's explanation. He now says that the act he
condemns is the assertion of a fact, which may be true, but which the
writer himself disbelieves; and thus he wished to punish such men as,
according to his caprice, he may suppose guilty of expressing opinions
not consonant with their own sentiments. For by what rule of evidence
could he discover and know what was really the writer's belief? But, to
return, was there any thing criminal in that paragraph? It asserted that
Mr. Gerry had powers sufficient to treat. The gentleman from Connecticut
denies this to be true. Mr. G. would aver that it was an undeniable
fact, as appears evidently from the documents now on the table. They
showed that the powers given to the Envoys were joint and several. And,
if Mr. Gerry had powers to treat, how could it be criminal to say that
he might treat? Or supposing the writer of the paragraph to have said,
that he believed Mr. Gerry would treat, could the opinion be charged
with any thing but being erroneous? When a paragraph of this nature was
held out as criminal, what writings, what opinions could escape the
severity of the intended law, which did not coincide with the opinions,
and which might counteract the secret views of a prevailing party?

The gentleman from Connecticut had also quoted an extract of a letter
said to be written by a member of Congress from Virginia, and published
in last Saturday's Aurora. The style and composition of that letter did
the highest honor to its writer. It contained more information and more
sense, and gave more proofs of a sound understanding and strong mind,
than ever the gentleman from Connecticut had displayed, or could display
on this floor. So far he would venture to say, although he had given but
a cursory reading to the letter, and he was altogether at a loss to know
what was criminal in it, though he might easily see why it was
obnoxious. Was it erroneous or criminal to say that debts and taxes
were the ruinous consequences of war? Or that some members in both
Houses of Congress uniformly voted in favor of an extension of the
powers of the Executive, and of every proposed expenditure of money? Was
it not true? Gentlemen of that description avow that, in their opinion,
the Executive is the weakest branch of government; and they act upon the
ostensible principle that, on that account, its influence and powers
must be increased. Look at the laws passed during this session. Look at
the alien bill, at the provisional army bill, look at the prodigious
influence acquired by so many new officers, and then deny that the
powers of the Executive have not been greatly increased. As to the
increased rate of expenditure, and the propensity of these gentlemen to
vote money, they would not themselves deny it. Was it criminal to say
that the Executive is supported by a party? when gentlemen declared that
it must be supported by a party. When the doctrine had been avowed on
this floor that men of a certain political opinion, alone ought to be
appointed to offices; and when the Executive had now adopted and carried
into practice that doctrine in its fullest extent?

Mr. DANA did not propose to enter into any controversy respecting the
honor which some gentlemen seemed disposed to arrogate to themselves, on
account of certain sentiments which they have avowed. If any members of
that House were ambitious of being distinguished as heralds of calumny
and apostles of insurrection, it might serve to show how incorrect were
their ideas of what is truly honorable.

The bill has two objects in view--it proposed to punish conspiracies and
calumnies against the Government. Against this bill, the freedom of
speech and of the press has been insisted on; and the bill has been
condemned as violating one of the articles adopted as amendments to the
constitution. Why is the gentleman from Pennsylvania so very anxious on
the subject? Or is it abridged by a law to restrain lying? Could the
framers of the constitution intend to guarantee, as a sacred principle,
the liberty of lying against the Government? What do gentlemen
understand by "the freedom of speech and of the press?" Is it a license
to injure others or the Government, by calumnies, with impunity?

Let it be remembered, that the uttering of malicious falsehoods, to the
injury of the Government, is the offence which it is now intended to
restrain; for, if what is uttered can be proved true, it will not,
according to this bill, be punished as libellous. What, then, is the
rational, the honest, the constitutional idea of freedom of language or
of conduct? Can it be any thing more than the right of uttering and
doing what is not injurious to others? This limitation of doing no
injury to the rights of others, undoubtedly belongs to the true
character of real liberty. Indeed, can it, in the nature of things, be
one of the rights of freemen to do injury? Let gentlemen consult any
writer of established reputation on this subject; let them examine the
constitution of their own favorite "terrible" Republic! they will not
find the ideas of liberty extended to that indefinite latitude which
they advocate on this floor.

However, if there are gentlemen who seriously and conscientiously
believe that it would be violating the constitution to restrain abuses
of the press, by punishing the guilty; if there are gentlemen who
believe that malicious calumnies against the Government ought to be
uttered and published with impunity, such gentlemen ought certainly not
to consent to act further upon this subject. Mr. D. was of a different
opinion. He believed that the editor of a newspaper, like the writer of
a public history, in the execution of his office, should dare to utter
what is true, and dread to utter any thing that is false. Considering,
therefore, that the liberty of lying, the privilege of vice, is what is
truly intended to be corrected by this bill, how is it possible that
gentlemen should appear so anxious to excite clamor against it? For
himself, Mr. D. wanted not the liberty of calumny or of conspiracy, and
was in favor of the principle of the bill.

The question on rejecting the bill, was taken by yeas and nays--yeas 36,
nays 47, as follows:

      YEAS.--David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Dempsey
      Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne,
      John Clopton, John Dawson, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin,
      James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B.
      Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes,
      Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew
      Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell,
      Anthony New, John Nicholas, Samuel Smith, William Smith,
      Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John
      Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham
      Venable, and Robert Williams.

      NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas.
      A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G.
      Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William
      Craik, Samuel W. Dana, George Dent, William Edmond, Thomas
      Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry
      Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold,
      William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, William
      Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes
      Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Harrison G. Otis,
      Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James
      Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thos.
      Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg
      Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson,
      Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.


FRIDAY, July 6.

_Abrogation of Treaty with France._

Mr. SEWALL called up the bill from the Senate, declaring the treaty
between France and the United States void, and of no effect.

Mr. ALLEN wished the resolution that he laid upon the table yesterday,
respecting the condition and relation of this country with respect to
France, first to be taken up.

Mr. SITGREAVES thought it would be proper first to go into a
consideration of this resolution. We are, said he, now in a state of
war. The House know that, by the distribution of powers under this
Government, it is only competent for Congress to declare the country in
war; therefore, until that declaration is made by this department, the
Executive and Judiciary cannot act in the same way as if the country was
at war. In other countries, the Executive Department can create war; but
here it cannot. If it shall be considered expedient to declare war in
consequence of the repeated aggressions and injuries we have received
from the French Republic, and the hostility urged against us, and the
necessity there exists of making defence against them, there can be no
occasion for declaring the treaties void; because, if war is declared,
it is the major proposition, and, of course, includes all the minor
propositions. If discussed at all, therefore, it would be proper to
discuss the major proposition first. He supposed it was a subject on
which the minds of members were made up. Whether, therefore, the vote is
affirmative or negative, it would be best to declare, in the first
instance, the state of the country.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped, if we are to come to this question of war at all, it
might be so taken up as to occupy the least time of the Legislature. The
question of setting aside the treaties is evidently included in the
other; he hoped, therefore, the proposition of the gentleman from
Connecticut, if to be taken up at all, would have a preference.

Mr. SEWALL said, if the question of annulling the treaties with France
was included in the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut, he
should think it ought first to be taken up; but he did not think this
was the case. The gentleman from Connecticut wishes a committee to state
what is our relation with respect to the French Republic. How could we
say what our relation is, except we determine what is our relation with
respect to the treaties subsisting between the two countries? He took
the two things to be perfectly distinct. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. SITGREAVES) seems to conceive that the question whether it will be
proper to make a declaration of war against France, is included in this
resolution, as he could not be so anxious for the declaration of an
historical fact, which, in his opinion, the report on this resolution
could only be; for gentlemen could not consider that the constitutional
power, placed in Congress to declare war, meant no more than a mere
report, whether or not the country is in war. A number of acts have been
done, which are indicative of war, and if a report was made as to our
situation with the French Republic, it must be reckoned at least a state
of hostility. But this would be doing nothing. If it was the intention
of any gentleman to propose a declaration of war, such a motion would
supersede the necessity of taking up the bill from the Senate; but, as
the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut did by no means go to
this, he hoped the bill he had mentioned would be first considered. If
he were to give an opinion on the subject, it would be clearly against
declaring war at present. As to the Judicial Courts, they would find no
difficulty in acting according to the situation of things, without
troubling themselves with the nice distinctions which gentlemen seemed
inclined to make between a state of war, and a state of hostility.

Mr. GALLATIN wished to know, if the House were to go into a Committee of
the Whole on the bill from the Senate, whether a declaration of war
might not be moved as an amendment to the bill. To his mind, there
seemed to be but little difference between saying the treaties are at an
end, and declaring war. If such a motion could be received, it would be
desirable to know the will of the House upon it. The shortest way of
coming at this question would be the best. He wished the SPEAKER to say
whether he thought such a motion would be in order.

[No answer was given to the inquiry.]

Mr. ALLEN considered it best to act always with frankness. He wished, by
his resolution, that a committee should inquire into, and declare to the
House, and to the country, the true state of our situation with respect
to France; and if they should report any measures which should supersede
the bill from the Senate, it would be the most fair and open way of
getting at the business.

The question on taking up the bill from the Senate was put, and
negatived--41 to 35.

Mr. ALLEN then called up his resolution. It had been said that our
negotiation with France is yet carrying on, which he denied, and he
wished this resolution to go to a numerous committee to report as to
that fact, and as to our situation generally with respect to France.

Mr. HARRISON hoped the House would go into a Committee of the Whole on
the state of the Union, in order to inquire into what is the state of
the country? Those gentlemen who wish war, and are determined to have
it, ought to speak out. The world should understand them, and the people
ought not to be deceived. He hoped gentlemen would bring forward their
declaration of war at once. He had always been, and should now be,
opposed to war, but he wanted to put his negative upon it.

Mr. HARPER had no objection to go into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, if the gentleman from Virginia had any motion to
make, when the House got into that situation.

Mr. HARTLEY hoped the resolution before the House would be referred to a
select committee, that the House might have a report upon it. He
wondered that gentlemen who were against going to war, should wish to
press the question of a declaration of it upon the House.

Mr. DANA observed that, from what had been now said upon the
resolution, he saw no necessity for voting upon it at all.

Mr. OTIS spoke in favor of referring the resolution to a select
committee, and saw no reason why the House should go into a Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. HARRISON said, every one would know he had no proposition to bring
forward with respect to war; he wished to remain at peace; but he wished
his constituents and the country at large to be informed as to what was
to be the state of the country. Seeing, however, that no member is ready
to make the declaration which had been so often spoken of, he should
withdraw his motion for going into a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. SITGREAVES observed, with respect to the allusions of the gentleman
last up, as to being prepared for a declaration of war, he confessed he
felt no hesitation in saying, that he thought this declaration ought to
be made in some form or other. He believed it was the duty of the
Legislature to make it. He had thought so for some time; but certain
considerations with respect to our Envoys, had prevented its being
proposed. Such, he said, was his individual opinion; but he owned he had
some scruples about bringing it forward, unless he should be assured,
from a comparison of the opinions of gentlemen, such a proposition would
receive a respectable and firm support. If he supposed this would be the
case, he would make the motion at this moment; and it was because the
motion of the gentleman from Connecticut looked towards a declaration,
that he was in favor of it.

Mr. S. said he had heard it said for months past, by gentlemen of
different opinions, that the aggressions of France against this country
were lawful cause of war, and all have admitted that it has become a
single question of expediency whether we shall declare war, or not. It
was said no consideration but that of interest, would prevent its being
done, and he did not believe there was any such. We have, said he, for a
long time suffered all the mischiefs that can be inflicted upon us in a
state of war, and, therefore, the single question is now, whether we
will avail ourselves of the advantages which might be derived from
declaring war; for, however trifling gentlemen may deem the distinction
which he made between a state of hostility and war, he looked upon that
distinction as real and material. In case of an invasion taking place
before a declaration of war has been made, certain limited authorities
are placed in the PRESIDENT, and in the Executives of the several
States, with respect to the armed force; but, if a declaration of war
has previously taken place, the direction of that force is placed wholly
in the hands of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. If this declaration
should be made, he should still deem it a war of defence on our part.
Mr. S. said he rose to declare his opinion on this point, and to say he
was in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. NICHOLAS supposed there could have been no doubt as to the
intentions of the gentleman from Connecticut in bringing forward this
resolution, though he expected it would have been found necessary to
have made it more explicit. If the object was, as he had no doubt it
was, to procure a proposition for a declaration of war, he hoped the
resolution would be so amended as to embrace that object. At present, it
was quite an unmeaning thing.

Mr. GALLATIN said, if he understood the resolution, it proposed the
appointment of a committee, to declare what is the state of things
between this country and France. He could not see with what propriety
Congress could declare a statement of facts by a legislative act. It
would be a little curious to pass a law to declare Mr. Gerry has no
authority to treat with the French Government; or to declare that this
room is sixty feet long, or any other fact. If the committee were to
report what was necessary to be done, he could see the use of such a
report.

Mr. LYON observed, that though this resolution was not so explicit as
gentlemen might wish, yet such as it was, he was desirous it should
pass. He wished to know the state of the country. Some say we are at
war; others that we are in a state of hostility; others at peace. He
wished to see a report on the subject. He had considered the country as
in war for some time; if he was mistaken, he was desirous his mistake
should be rectified. If we are at war, it would be well to request the
PRESIDENT to get us peace as soon as he can.

The question on the resolution was put and negatived, without a
division.

On motion of Mr. OTIS, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on
the state of the Union, to take into consideration the bill from the
Senate declaring our treaties with France void and of no effect. The
committee being formed, and the bill having been read,

Mr. LIVINGSTON called for the reading of the treaties.

Mr. GALLATIN thought it would be sufficient to have certain parts of the
treaties, which he mentioned, read. Mr. LIVINGSTON consented; but Mr.
LYON persisted in the motion for reading the whole. On the question
being taken, he only rose in favor of it. The parts of the treaties
called for by Mr. G. were read.

Mr. SEWALL said, some doubts might be entertained, perhaps, as to the
propriety of this measure. It is certainly a novel doctrine to pass a
law declaring a treaty void; but the necessity arose from the peculiar
situation of this country. In most countries, it is in the power of the
Chief Magistrate to suspend a treaty whenever he thinks proper; here
Congress only has that power. We have, said he, during this session, in
a variety of cases, suspended the treaties in question, by authorizing
measures of hostility against France, contrary to the stipulations
contained therein. He believed it would be proper, therefore, to set
aside these treaties by legal authority. But he confessed to do this,
in the manner proposed by the Senate, would, at least, be inconvenient.
He could not conceive that the Senate meant to go so far as this bill
goes. We ought not to say the treaties are void and of no effect. They
must have effect as historical facts; they must have effect, in our
appeal to the world, on the ground of their having been violated, and in
our claim upon France on account of those violations. There are also
other articles which must have effect in case of war. He alluded to the
articles which respect the situation of French citizens in this country,
or American citizens in France, after war shall have been declared by
either power. Mr. S., therefore, proposed a new form of a bill, more
simple and with a much shorter preface, viz: "that, whereas the treaties
have been in numerous instances violated, they are no longer to be
considered as law within the United States," &c. It also proposed that
any claim or restraint, stipulated by the said treaties, shall be
abrogated and annulled.

The CHAIRMAN said this motion was not in order, and could not be
received.

Mr. NICHOLAS saw no difference between the substitute proposed and the
original bill. The gentleman from Massachusetts wished to retain the
provision relative to the residence of the citizens of either country,
after the declaration of war shall have taken place; but could that
gentleman for a moment suppose that he could annul one part of a treaty
and preserve other parts? The idea appeared to him a very extraordinary
one.

Mr. RUTLEDGE hoped the committee would rise, and that the bill would be
referred to a select committee. He believed it would be better to
declare a part of the treaties void than the whole, which he thought
might with propriety be done.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to the committee's rising; but he could
not believe we could take such parts of a treaty as we liked, and
declare the rest void.

Mr. DANA believed that the gentleman from Virginia did not rightly
apprehend what had been said by the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. D.
admitted the impropriety of declaring void and of no effect a legal
instrument which was originally valid. In his opinion, this impropriety
might be avoided, and the object of the bill attained, by a different
phraseology. He believed a proper mode of acting upon this business
would be, to declare the stipulations of the French treaties no longer
obligatory on the United States. This we may justly do, in consequence
of their being disregarded by France.

As to the effect of such a declaration, he acknowledged that it must be
regarded as abrogating all those articles of the treaties which are
executory, such as stipulate for the future conduct of the parties.
Agreeing thus far with the gentleman from Virginia, he would consent
most cheerfully that all such articles should be set aside, as they
respect both countries. But the declaration would not have any effect
on articles which are executed, such as contain cessions or
renunciations of territorial claims, and where a corresponding
possession has taken place. The operation of these articles is
completed, and cannot be reversed by the declaration now proposed.

Mr. D. then moved to amend the enacting clause, by expunging all the
words after "That," and substituting "the United States are, of right,
freed and exonerated from the stipulations of the treaties heretofore
concluded between the United States and France, and that the same shall
not henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory on the Government or
citizens of the United States."

Mr. OTIS approved of this motion, and, after a few observations by him
in favor of it, the question was put and carried upon it without a
division.

Mr. O. then moved to strike out the whole of this preamble; which motion
being carried,

Mr. DANA proposed that the reasons for passing this bill should be
condensed in the preamble, to read as follows: "Whereas, the treaties
concluded between the United States and France have been repeatedly
violated on the part of the French Government, and the just claims of
the United States for reparation of the injuries so committed have been
refused; and their attempts to negotiate an amicable adjustment of all
complaints between the two nations have been repelled with indignity;
and whereas, under the authority of the French Government, there is yet
pursued against the United States a system of predatory violence
infracting the said treaties, and hostile to the rights of a free and
independent nation, therefore," &c.

The question on the preamble was put and carried--41 to 38.

The committee then rose, and the House took up the amendments. On the
question being put on agreeing to the new preamble,

Mr. BAYARD said he thought it more in detail than was necessary. He
thought it more like a State paper than the preamble of a law. He
thought the preamble ought to go no further than to state sufficient
ground for the act, which was about to be done; and he took it for
granted that whenever a nation violates an essential article of a
treaty, it is competent for the other party to declare the treaty no
longer binding upon them. He, therefore, moved to strike out all the
preamble after saying the treaties have been frequently violated. As to
the French having committed depredations upon our commerce, and refused
to negotiate with our Commissioners, though these circumstances may be a
just cause of war, he did not know whether they were sufficient ground
upon which to declare a treaty void.

Mr. KITTERA was against striking out. He could not agree that there
could be causes for a declaration of war, which are not also causes for
setting aside a treaty. The reverse of this position appeared to him to
be true, viz: that there might be causes for declaring a treaty void,
which would not be causes of war.

Mr. CRAIK was in favor of the preamble as it stood.

Mr. GORDON hoped the amendment would not prevail. It ought to be
considered that if this bill passed into a law, it would be considered
as a novel thing. It will be tantamount to a State declaration to annul
a treaty, and there ought to be the grounds annexed to it which had led
to the measure; and though the gentleman from Delaware is desirous of
stating a sufficient cause, he did not think his motion went far enough.
The practice of nations is, that when injuries are done, reparation is
demanded; and it was necessary, in his opinion, to state that this
demand had been made in vain, and that the injuries complained of are
still continued.

Mr. S. SMITH hoped the amendment would be adopted. He disliked preambles
very much. The reasons given by the gentleman from Delaware in favor of
his motion he thought well founded. It would be much better to give one
good reason for declaring the treaties no longer binding, than several
doubtful ones. In his opinion there were some of this description as the
preamble stands at present. He did not know that a reparation for
injuries had been refused by France. He had seen nothing like an
absolute demand made upon the French Government. The Envoys were
empowered to make the demand; but, from their not having been duly
received, the demand was never made. If it were made, it is clear it has
not been complied with; but we have no evidence of its having been
refused to be complied with. On the contrary, we see that on the 3d of
April, Talleyrand had fixed a day on which he proposed to treat with Mr.
Gerry on the subject of the disputes between the two countries. We have
not heard the result of the conference; but it may have happened that
Mr. Talleyrand has offered to make complete reparation for the injuries
committed on our commerce, and this intelligence may arrive here a
fortnight hence, and then a declaration of this sort would not have a
good appearance. He thought, therefore, it would be better to strike
these words out than to retain them.

Mr. S. presumed it was not yet _sedition_ for him to say that he
believed proposals to treat would be made to our Commissioners,
independent of any tribute, and such as this country might with honor
accept. He hoped, therefore, no difficulty would be placed in the way,
by passing the preamble as it now stands.

Mr. DANA was not generally in favor of fixing preambles to laws.
Whenever the subject is such that it is obviously competent for the
Legislature to act upon it; whenever the act proposed is, from its
nature, completely within the usual Legislative powers, and, without any
explanation, appears perfectly consistent with national honor and
propriety, a preamble is unnecessary. But ought this to be said of the
subject under consideration? Whence is it that the United States may
abrogate the treaties with France? Is it because the Legislature may, at
pleasure, set aside a treaty? If it is proper to do this, without any
external cause, a preamble is needless in the present instance.
According to his view of the subject, the act was founded on a different
principle. France has violated the faith pledged by her treaties with
America: this, by the law of nations, puts it within the option of the
Legislature to decide, as a question of expediency, whether the United
States shall any longer continue to observe their stipulations. It is
owing to the perfidy of the French Government that the abrogation of our
treaties with that nation has become justifiable and necessary. As an
American, he hoped the United States would always regard the faith due
to treaties, and that all their acts would, on the face of them, appear
consistent with it. In this respect, he wished the conduct of the
American Government to exhibit a marked contrast to French perfidy. It
is of importance to the fairness of our national character. Therefore it
is that the facts should be stated which have led to this measure.

The gentleman from Delaware, in support of the amendment which he has
moved, supposes it sufficient to state one cause for setting aside the
treaties. He is understood to admit that a sufficient cause should be
stated. In this principle, said Mr. D., we are agreed. But the question
arises, whether a violation of the treaties on the part of France is, of
itself, sufficient for setting them aside? The idea of Mr. D. was, that
it would not be sufficient, according to the liberal principles which
should be cherished in the United States. A treaty might be violated by
the imprudence of some person in authority, or by persons acting without
authority; and yet the foreign Government, on proper representations,
might be willing to redress the injury. In such case, it would ill
become the Government of the injured party immediately to dissolve
friendly connections. Why is it now deemed requisite to abrogate the
treaties by which this country has been connected with France? It is
because France has not only violated them, but has also refused that
attention which was due to our representations on the subject, and
persists in the violation. On this account, and in order to show that
the United States were completely justifiable in taking the measure, he
was against the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware, and in favor
of retaining the several clauses of the preamble.

A gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) has declared himself in favor of
this amendment, because, in his view, there is no proof that our claim
for the injuries committed on our rights, as a neutral nation, have been
refused to be adjusted by France. The reason assigned for this opinion
is so extraordinary that it may astonish every man acquainted with
subjects of this nature. It is, that the French would not receive the
Envoys charged with this business, or permit their speaking to them,
although they waited for months at the palace-gate of Directorial
Arrogance supplicating in vain for an audience. Were the gentleman from
Maryland to go himself, or send one of his clerks, to present a demand
for a sum justly due to him, if his debtor, instead of discharging or
attending to the account, would not consent even to hear him on the
subject, but should kick him from the door, or order a servant to do it,
would not the gentleman consider such conduct as a refusal to satisfy
the demand. He who knows that claims of justice merit the respect of
Governments, as well as of individuals, and ought never to be neglected
without reasonable cause, must know that evasions, intentional
procrastination, and affected delays, are equivalent to a refusal of
satisfaction. This is the doctrine of reason, of common sense, of
municipal law, and of the law of nations. The facts stated in the
preamble, therefore, are strictly true; they are established by the very
statement which the gentleman has made to disprove them. And since he
has made a question on the subject, it is of additional importance for
the Legislature to declare its conviction of their truth.

Mr. CRAIK believed with the gentleman from Connecticut, last up, that
from the declaration of his colleague this question was of consequence.
He believed gentlemen were now called upon to testify to the truth of
this statement, since it had been doubted. The people ought not to be
left in doubt on this subject.

Mr. OTIS said, exactly the same effect which had been produced upon the
mind of the gentleman last up, was also produced upon his. Before he had
heard the arguments of the gentleman from Maryland in its favor, he
intended to vote for the motion of the gentleman from Delaware, as being
more concise, and as he thought stating sufficient ground for the act
about to be passed; but when that gentleman says we have no evidence of
reparation for the injuries committed upon our commerce being refused to
be made, the abhorrence he felt at the idea of being ranked among
members of this opinion would lead him to vote against it. He believed
the facts stated in the preamble unquestionably true, and he did not
think there could have been a man in the United States who had a doubt
on the subject. He believed there could be no doubt that when a sum of
money is neglected to be paid, when due, though the debtor may refuse to
see any person authorized to make the demand, that it is legally refused
to be paid.

If the documents on the table were examined, Mr. O. said it would be
found, that so far from Mr. Talleyrand having listened to the claims of
our Commissioners, he had expressed his surprise that they should have
been made, alleging that the priority of claim was on the part of the
French Government. Mr. O. made several other observations, when he
concluded by saying, that if any offers of pacification were made by men
of the description of those at present in power in the French Directory,
he should have no confidence in them: he should think them insidious,
and that they originated in their fears, and were intended to effect our
ruin.

Mr. HARPER said he would say only a few words in justification of his
vote in favor of the present motion. He disliked preambles altogether.
He voted against the one from the Senate, and he should be in favor of
reducing this; for, if we must have a preamble, he thought the less the
better. It is the business of the Legislature, Mr. H. said, to pass
laws; if a manifesto is proper to be published on this occasion, it
would more probably fall under the Executive Department. It is his
business to issue State papers, and he could do it much better than it
could be done in this House. He was sorry it should be thought necessary
to have any preface at all to the law, as it was departing from a good
old rule laid down by Congress.

Mr. S. SMITH was not convinced, by any thing that had been said against
this motion, that what he had before stated was ill-founded. It had been
asked whether, if he sent three persons to demand a debt, and the debtor
ordered them away without seeing them, he should not consider the act as
a refusal to pay. He answered, he should. But he would put a case, which
he thought more in point. Were he to send three persons to settle an
account with a debtor, and he were to send two of them home again, but
keep one, and promise to adjust the business with him, he should
naturally expect he would do so, and should not think of proceeding to
any rigorous measures with him, until he heard the result.

The gentleman from Massachusetts has said that he can never consent to
accept of any terms from the present Executive Directory, as he shall
consider them insidious, and not to be relied upon. After a two years'
war, perhaps, he may be of a different opinion. Mr. S. said he should be
as unwilling as any man to accept of any terms from the French
Government which would be derogatory to the United States; but if the
Directory will engage that all the depredations upon our commerce shall
cease, and will offer to treat with us on equitable terms, (which he did
not think improbable,) he should be for acceding, most cheerfully, to
the proposal.

Mr. GALLATIN said he should vote against the motion to strike out a part
of the preamble agreed to in the Committee of the Whole. He was of
opinion with gentlemen, that it was better to pass laws in general,
without preambles; but this proceeding is altogether of a novel nature.
He knew of no precedent of a Legislature repealing a treaty. It is
therefore an act of a peculiar kind, and it appeared to him necessary
that Congress should justify it by a declaration of their reasons. Nor
could he understand the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina,
when he said the Executive Department was better calculated for the
publishing of a manifesto than the Legislature, or, in other words,
could assign the reasons that influenced Congress better than Congress
themselves. If, then, a preamble is to be adopted, it ought to contain
those reasons which operated in producing the law. He thought this would
be more correctly stated by leaving the preamble as it is, than by
adopting the amendment.

There was also another reason for preserving the preamble as at present.
The French have violated the Treaty of Commerce made with this country;
but it would be rather difficult for any gentleman to show that repeated
violations have taken place of our Treaty of Alliance with France. The
ground of complaint is, that France has violated the Treaty of Commerce
between the two countries, and the laws of nations, and not the Treaty
of Alliance; and, therefore, a breach of that treaty is not the reason
why it is set aside. Besides, if repeated violations of a treaty are
sufficient reasons for setting it aside, it could not be forgotten that
certain orders had been issued by another country, which are not
conformable to our treaty with that power. So, that it is not sufficient
to say, that because a treaty has been violated, we will repeal it; but
we ought to show to the world that repeated attempts have been made, in
vain, to obtain redress.

But the gentleman from Maryland is apprehensive that the statement of
the French Government having refused to make reparation for the injuries
committed upon our commerce could not be correct, from the possibility
of Mr. Gerry having succeeded in making a treaty since the date of our
last despatches. He acknowledged there was a bare possibility of the
fact being so; but this ought to operate as a reason against passing the
bill at all, and not against the preamble.

Mr. EDMOND said, he voted for rejecting the Senate's preamble. It
appeared to him that no preamble was necessary. For, if it were
necessary to state the reasons which induced the passing of this act, it
would be proper to state all the reasons, and to do that would be a work
of considerable time; and, upon the facts stated, there might probably
be a considerable difference of opinion. If reasons were stated for
passing this law, and, at a future day, when an adjustment of
differences should take place, the negotiator on the part of the United
States were to adduce other reasons for passing this act than are stated
in this preamble, it might be stated by the negotiator, on the part of
France, why do you muster up complaints now, which you did not think of
when the law passed? He therefore thought it would be best to pass the
law without a preamble at all.

No question in the laws of nations, Mr. E. said, was more clear, than
that, when a treaty is violated by one nation, the other party, who has
maintained good faith, may either discharge themselves from the
obligations of it, or, if kindly disposed, they may set on foot a
negotiation, or they may declare war, without doing either of the other
two. He laid it down as a further principle, that where there are
several treaties in existence between two countries, and one of them is
violated, the injured party may demand satisfaction; and if it be not
given, they may declare the whole of the treaties void. He therefore was
of opinion that France having violated our treaty with her, we have a
right, without assigning any reason for it, to set it aside; and as we
have repeatedly applied to them for redress, and they have refused to
grant it, we have a right to reject the whole or to declare war, without
assigning any reason whatever. However, if we wish to appear fair in the
eyes of the world, we may, if we please, assign a reason for our act;
but, in this case, he would either give all the reasons which exist, or
make them as precise as possible. He should, therefore, vote in favor of
striking out the words in question.

The question to strike out was negatived; and the question being taken
on the preamble, it was carried--there being 53 votes for it.

The bill was ordered for a third reading this day. It afterwards
received its third reading, and was passed--yeas 47, nays 37, as
follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas
      A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G.
      Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William
      Craik, Samuel W. Dana, George Dent, William Edmond, Abiel
      Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn,
      Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William
      Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William
      Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Jas. H. Imlay, John Wilkes
      Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Harrison G. Otis,
      Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James
      Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thos.
      Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg
      Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson,
      Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

      NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thos. Blount, Dempsey
      Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne,
      John Clopton, John Dawson, Thomas Evans, John Fowler,
      Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A.
      Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph
      Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston,
      Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair
      McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas,
      Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard
      Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.


TUESDAY, July 10.

_Punishment of Crimes._

The bill, in addition to the act for punishing crimes against the United
States, and for other purposes, was read the third time; when

Mr. SITGREAVES wished the bill to be recommitted. It had been suggested
to him that great inconvenience arises in the Federal Courts, from its
having been conceived that they have not the power to bind to good
behavior, and he was desirous of removing this defect, by adding a
section to this bill for the purpose.

Mr. BAYARD thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania had better bring this
subject forward by itself, than have this bill recommitted, as it was no
way connected with it.

Mr. SITGREAVES consented.

The question was now on the passing of the bill.

Mr. MCDOWELL called for the yeas and nays upon it.

Mr. NICHOLAS rose, he said, to ask an explanation of the principles upon
which this bill is founded. He confessed it was strongly impressed upon
his mind, that it was not within the powers of the House to act upon
this subject. He looked in vain amongst the enumerated powers given to
Congress in the constitution, for an authority to pass a law like the
present; but he found what he considered as an express prohibition
against passing it. He found that, in order to quiet the alarms of the
people of the United States with respect to the silence of the
constitution as to the liberty of the press, not being perfectly
satisfied that the powers not vested in Congress remained with the
people, that one of the first acts of this Government was to propose
certain amendments to the constitution, to put this matter beyond doubt,
which amendments are now become a part of the constitution. It is now
expressly declared by that instrument, "that the powers not delegated to
the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;" and,
also, "that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press."

Mr. N. asked whether this bill did not go to the abridgment of the
freedom of speech and of the press? If it did not, he would be glad if
gentlemen would define wherein the freedom of speech and of the press
consists.

Mr. N. wished gentlemen, before they give a final vote on this bill, to
consider its effects; and, if they do this, he thought they would
consent to stop here. He desired them to reflect on the nature of our
Government; that all its officers are elective, and that the people have
no other means of examining their conduct but by means of the press, and
an unrestrained investigation through them of the conduct of the
Government. Indeed, the heart and life of a free Government, is a free
press; take away this, and you take away its main support. You might as
well say to the people, we, your Representatives, are faithful servants,
you need not look into our conduct; we will keep our seats for a little
longer time than that for which you have given them to us. To restrict
the press, would be to destroy the elective principle, by taking away
the information necessary to election, and there would be no difference
between it and a total denial of the right of election, but in the
degree of usurpation.

Mr. OTIS said, the professions of attachment to the constitution, made
by the gentleman from Virginia, are certainly honorable to him; and he
could not believe that an attachment so deeply engrafted, as he states
his to be, would be shaken by this bill. The gentleman had caught an
alarm on the first suggestion of a sedition bill, which had not yet
subsided; and though the present bill is perfectly harmless, and
contains no provision which is not practised upon under the laws of the
several States in which gentlemen had been educated, and from which they
had drawn most of their ideas of jurisprudence, yet the gentleman
continues to be dissatisfied with it.

The objections of the gentleman from Virginia, he believed, might be
reduced to two inquiries. In the first place, had the constitution given
Congress cognizance over the offences described in this bill prior to
the adoption of the amendments to the constitution? and, if Congress had
that cognizance before that time, have those amendments taken it away?
With respect to the first question, it must be allowed that every
independent Government has a right to preserve and defend itself against
injuries and outrages which endanger its existence; for, unless it has
this power, it is unworthy the name of a free Government, and must
either fall or be subordinate to some other protection. Now some of the
offences delineated in this bill are of this description. Unlawful
combinations to oppose the measures of Government, to intimidate its
officers, and to excite insurrections, are acts which tend directly to
the destruction of the constitution, and there could be no doubt that
the guardians of that constitution are bound to provide against them.
And if gentlemen would agree that these were acts of a criminal nature,
it follows that all means calculated to produce these effects, whether
by speaking, writing, or printing, were also criminal. From the nature
of things, therefore, the National Government is invested with a power
to protect itself against outrages of this kind, or it must be indebted
to and dependent on an individual State for its protection, which is
absurd. This essential right resulting from the spirit of the
constitution, was still more evident in the language of that instrument.
The people of the individual States brought with them as a birthright
into this country the common law of England, upon which all of them have
founded their statute law. If it were not for this common law, many
crimes which are committed in the United States would go unpunished. No
State has enacted statutes for the punishment of all crimes which may be
committed; yet in every State he presumed there was a Superior Court
which claimed cognizance of all offences against good morals, and which
restrained misdemeanors and opposition to the constituted authorities,
under the sanction merely of the common law. When the people of the
United States convened for the purpose of framing a federal compact,
they were all habituated to this common law, to its usages, its maxims,
and its definitions. It had been more or less explicitly recognized in
the constitution of every State, and in that of Maryland it was
declared to be the law of the land. If, then, we find in an instrument
digested by men who were all familiarized to the common law, not only
that the distribution of power, and the great objects to be provided for
are congenial to that law, but that the terms and definitions by which
those powers are described, have an evident allusion to it, and must
otherwise be quite inexplicable, or at best of a very uncertain meaning,
it will be natural to conclude that, in forming the constitution, they
kept in view the model of the common law, and that a safe recourse may
be had to it in all cases that would otherwise be doubtful. Thus we
shall find that one great end of this compact, as appears in the
preamble, is the establishment of justice, and for this purpose a
Judicial department is erected, whose powers are declared "to extend to
all cases in law and equity, arising under the constitution, the laws of
the United States," &c. Justice, if the common law ideas of it are
rejected, is susceptible of various constructions, but agreeably to the
principles of that law, it affords redress for every injury, and
provides a punishment for every crime that threatens to disturb the
lawful operations of Government. Again, what is intended by "cases at
law and equity arising under the constitution," as distinguished from
cases "arising under the laws of the United States?" What other law can
be contemplated but common law; what sort of equity but that legal
discretion which has been exercised in England from time immemorial, and
is to be learnt from the books and reports of that country? If it be
answered that these words comprise civil controversies only, though no
reason appears for this distinction, yet what is to be done with other
terms, with trial, jury, impeachment, &c., for an explanation of all
which, the common law alone can furnish a standard? It has been said by
the gentleman that the constitution has specified the only crimes that
are cognizable under it; but other crimes had been made penal at an
early period of the Government, by express statute, to which no
exception had been taken. For example, stealing public records, perjury,
obstructing the officers of justice, bribery in a Judge, and even a
contract to give a bribe, (which last was a restraint upon the liberty
of writing and speaking,) were all punishable, and why? Not because they
are described in the constitution, but because they are crimes against
the United States--because laws against them are necessary to carry
other laws into effect; because they tend to subvert the constitution.
The same reasons applied to the offences mentioned in the bill.

Mr. MACON said, the same section of the constitution which forbids any
interference with the freedom of speech and of the press, extends also
to religious establishments, and says, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." This bill ought to be considered, therefore, as the
commencement of a system which might as well be extended to the
establishment of a national religion, as to a "restraint of speech, and
of the press." He acknowledged the bill was less exceptionable than when
it came from the Senate; but it yet contained the principle which he
considered as violating the constitution.

Mr. M. said, he had attended to all that had been said in support of
this bill; but could find nothing like argument in it. When the words of
the constitution were so express, it seems impossible they could be
understood as the gentleman from Massachusetts had represented them.
Several authorities, Mr. M. said, had been read to show that this bill
will form a constitutional law. He believed, however, far more might be
adduced to show the reverse. He believed the best way of coming at the
truth of the construction of any part of the constitution, was, by
examining the opinions that were held respecting it when it was under
discussion in the different States.

Mr. M. then proceeded to quote the opinions of the leading members in
several of the State conventions, in order to show, from the opinions of
the friends of the constitution, that it was never understood that
prosecutions for libels could take place under the General Government;
but that they must be carried on in the State courts, as the
constitution gave no power to Congress to pass laws on this subject. Not
a single member in any of the conventions gave an opinion to the
contrary. The following are the words of Judge Iredell, of North
Carolina, on the occasion. Judge Wilson, of this State, and several
others, were equally strong; but we have them not at hand, and if we
had, to give extracts from the whole would occupy too much room. In the
Convention of North Carolina, in reply to a member who had said that the
General Government might make it treason to write against the most
arbitrary proceedings, but who, it appears, afterwards corrected
himself, and said he meant only misprision of treason, and only that it
might be done within the ten miles square, where they were to have
exclusive legislation, Judge Iredell, thus spoke:

      "Where is the power given them to do this? They (Congress)
      have power to define and punish piracies and felonies
      committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of
      nations; but they have no power to define _any other crime
      whatever_. This shows how apt gentlemen are to commit
      mistakes. The powers of the Government are particularly
      enumerated and defined. They can claim no others but such
      as are so enumerated. In my opinion, they are excluded as
      much from the exercise of any other authority, as they
      could be by the strongest negative clause that could be
      framed."

Gentlemen, Mr. M. said, might call this a harmless bill; but however
harmless it may be, it is a beginning to act upon forbidden ground, and
no one can say to what extent it may hereafter be carried. He thought
this subject of the liberty of the press was sacred, and ought to be
left where the constitution had left it. The States have complete power
on the subject, and when Congress legislates, it ought to have
confidence in the States, as the States ought also to have confidence in
Congress, or our Government is gone. This Government depends upon the
State Legislatures for existence. They have only to refuse to elect
Senators to Congress, and all is gone. He believed there was nowhere any
complaint of a want of proper laws under the State Governments; and
though there may not be remedies found for every grievance in the
General Government, what it wants of power will be found in the State
Governments, and there can be no doubt but that power will be duly
exercised when necessity calls for it.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, that notwithstanding the sarcasms which had been
thrown out against those who oppose this measure; notwithstanding that
kind of accommodating principle which has been set up and reiterated,
that the powers of this constitution extend to every possible case--a
principle which goes to the destruction of State authorities, and makes
that instrument mean any thing or nothing--notwithstanding this, he
should again venture to engage the attention of the House while he
endeavored to show that this bill is not only contrary to the spirit,
but to the direct letter of the constitution.

The constitution declares that "no law shall be passed to abridge the
liberty of speech or of the press." Let us inquire, said Mr. L., what
was the liberty enjoyed at the time this declaration was agreed to, and
see whether citizens will enjoy the same liberty after this law passes
that they then enjoyed. Will gentlemen say that the same liberty of
writing and speaking did not exist then that now exists? If they will
not say this, must they not allow that the constitution is positive in
prohibiting any change in this respect? Gentlemen may call this liberty
an evil, if they please; if it be an evil, (which he was far from
believing,) it is an evil perpetrated by the constitution.

The constitution seems to have contemplated cases which might arise at a
future day. It seems to have foreseen that majorities (far be it from
him to believe the present majority is of the number) might be actuated
by dispositions hostile to the Government; that it might wish to pass
laws to suppress the only means by which its corrupt views might be made
known to the people, and therefore says, _no_ law shall be passed to
abridge the liberty of speech and of the press. This privilege is
connected with another dear and valuable privilege--the liberty of
conscience. What is liberty of conscience? Gentlemen may to-morrow
establish a national religion agreeably to the opinion of a majority of
this House, on the ground of a uniformity of worship being more
consistent with public happiness than a diversity of worship. The doing
of this is not less forbidden than the act which the House are about to
do. But, it is said, will you suffer a printer to abuse his
fellow-citizens with impunity, ascribing his conduct to the very worst
of motives? Is no punishment to be inflicted on such a person? Yes.
There is a remedy for offences of this kind in the laws of every State
in the Union. Every man's character is protected by law, and every man
who shall publish a libel on any part of the Government, is liable to
punishment. Not, said Mr. L., by laws which we ourselves have made, but
by laws passed by the several States. And is not this most proper?
Suppose a libel were written against the PRESIDENT, where is it most
probable that such an offence would receive an impartial trial? In a
court, the judges of which are appointed by the PRESIDENT, by a jury
selected by an officer holding his office at the will of the PRESIDENT?
or in a court independent of any influence whatever? The States are as
much interested in the preservation of the General Government as we are.
We do wrong when we attempt to set up interests independent of the
States. They are all desirous of preserving the constitution as it now
stands; and it is, therefore, much more probable that justice will be
found in a court in which neither of the parties have influence, than in
one which is wholly in the power of the PRESIDENT.

The bill was then passed--yeas 44, nays 41, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James
      A. Bayard, David Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, John
      Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, Samuel W. Dana,
      William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster,
      Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William
      Gordon, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe
      Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L.
      Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman,
      Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge,
      jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard,
      Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith,
      Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark
      Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg
      Wadsworth.

      NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
      Blount, Richard Brent, Stephen Bullock, Dempsey Burges,
      Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John
      Clopton, John Dawson, George Dent, John Fowler, Albert
      Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna,
      Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister,
      David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew
      Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, William Matthews,
      Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg,
      jun., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John Trigg, Philip
      Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and
      Robert Williams.


FRIDAY, July 13.

_Capture of French armed vessels._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for encouraging
the capture of French armed vessels by armed vessels belonging to
citizens of the United States; which was agreed to without debate or
amendment, and ordered to be read a third time to-day. It was
accordingly immediately read a third time; when

Mr. MCDOWELL said, he hoped this bill would not pass. Congress had
already passed laws authorizing public and private armed vessels to
attack and take French vessels; but they are now called upon to give a
bounty upon the guns that are brought in, according to their size. He
was not willing to allow this. It would open a door to innumerable
frauds. Plans would be laid between the owners of privateers here and
their friends in the West Indies, and vessels and arms would be thrown
in their way for the purpose of capture, and in this manner our Treasury
would be drained to an extent which no man could at present foresee. He
could see no use in the provision, as it would not induce merchant
vessels to go in search of French vessels; and, without some unfair
play, it would never be worth the while of persons fitting out
privateers for the purpose. He called the yeas and nays upon it. They
were taken accordingly, and were, yeas 34, nays 36, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, David
      Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, Joshua Coit, William
      Craik, Samuel W. Dana, William Edmond, Abiel Foster, Dwight
      Foster, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon,
      Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley,
      William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John
      Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac
      Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman,
      Samuel Sewall, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves,
      Nathaniel Smith, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, and John
      E. Van Allen.

      NAYS.--David Bard, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Dempsey
      Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne,
      John Clopton, John Dawson, George Dent, Albert Gallatin,
      James Gillespie, William Barry Grove, Carter B. Harrison,
      Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter
      Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon,
      Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell,
      Anthony New, John Nicholas, Samuel Smith, William Smith,
      Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter,
      Thomas Tillinghast, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

And so the said bill was rejected.


SATURDAY, July 14.

The hour having arrived, at which the call of the House was to be made,
the names of the members were called over, eighty-two members (including
the Speaker) appeared in their seats, twenty-three absent, twenty of
whom have leave, one sick, and two for whom excuses were made, and
received by the House.


_Capture of French vessels._

Mr. SITGREAVES, called up for decision the resolution he laid on the
table yesterday, viz:

      _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and
      bring in a bill for giving a bounty on the capture of
      French armed ships or vessels, by armed ships or vessels
      owned by a citizen or citizens of the United States.

The question on the resolution, was then put and negatived--yeas 40,
nays 41.

And so the motion was rejected.


MONDAY, July 16.

_Intercourse with France._

Another bill was received from the Senate, to amend the act for
suspending the commercial intercourse between the United States and
France and her dependencies.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved to postpone this bill till next session.

Mr. HARPER hoped not. This bill, he said, was very different from the
one which had been negatived. That proposed to dispense with sureties
altogether; this only to lower the amount of the bond. Instead of the
owner giving security in a sum equal to the amount of vessel and cargo,
and finding two sureties in half the sum, this bill proposes that the
owner and master shall be bound in a sum equal to the amount of the
value of the vessel, and a surety in from one to ten thousand dollars.
To exact a bond equal to the amount of the vessel and cargo in every
case, would be very inconvenient. They are sometimes very valuable.
There is now, he said, a vessel in this port ready to sail, whose cargo
is worth $300,000. To exact from the owner a bond to the full amount,
and two sureties in half the sum, would be requiring a very heavy
security from them. It would be sufficient, he thought, to require a
bond equal to the profit which it is probable would be derived from any
voyage.

Mr. S. SMITH said, this bill was certainly very different from that
which had been rejected by this House, though it did not meet with his
approbation at present. It was capable, however, of amendment. The
security at present proposed was not worthy of the name. Had he a ship
ready to sail such as the gentleman last up had named, he would
willingly forfeit the sum proposed, to have the privilege of sending her
to a French market. The difference in price between a French and a
Hamburg market would make it well worth his while to do so. In many
cases, such a voyage would afford 50 per cent. A regulation something
like the present could only secure the fair trader; but the surety must
be a much larger sum than $10,000.

The committee rose, however, and Mr. SMITH renewed his amendment in the
House, when it was agreed to, after some objections to it from Mr.
BAYARD--36 to 28. The bill was then ordered to be read a third time,
received its third reading, and passed.

The House having received all the bills from the PRESIDENT, and the
business of the two Houses being finished, the SPEAKER adjourned the
House till the first Monday in December next.




FIFTH CONGRESS.--THIRD SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 3, 1798.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, December 3, 1798.

The third session of the fifth Congress commenced this day, conformably
to the provision of the constitution, and the Senate assembled at the
city of Philadelphia, in their Chamber.


PRESENT:

JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire.

THEODORE FOSTER and RAY GREENE, from Rhode Island.

WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania.

HUMPHREY MARSHALL, from Kentucky.

JACOB READ, from South Carolina.

JAMES GUNN, from Georgia.

DANIEL SMITH, appointed a Senator by the Executive of the State of
Tennessee, in the recess of that Legislature, in place of Andrew
Jackson, resigned, took his seat in the Senate.

The members present not being sufficient to form a quorum, the Senate
adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.


TUESDAY, December 4.

HENRY LATIMER, from the State of Delaware, attended.

The members present not being sufficient to form a quorum, adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, December 5.

BENJAMIN GOODHUE, from the State of Massachusetts; ELIJAH PAINE, and
NATHANIEL CHIPMAN, from the State of Vermont; JOHN LAURANCE, from the
State of New York; and TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from the State of North
Carolina, severally attended.

No quorum being present, the Senate adjourned.


THURSDAY, December 6.

RICHARD STOCKTON, from the State of New Jersey, and JOSEPH ANDERSON,
from the State of Tennessee, severally attended.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election
of a President _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and JOHN
LAURANCE was chosen.

The credentials of DANIEL SMITH, appointed Senator by the Executive of
the State of Tennessee, in place of Andrew Jackson, resigned, were read,
and the oath was, by the PRESIDENT, administered to him, as the law
provides.

_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 JOHN
LAURANCE, President of the Senate _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 JOHN LAURANCE, President of the Senate _pro tempore_.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a
quorum of the House is assembled, and that they have appointed a joint
committee on their part, together with such committee as the Senate may
appoint on theirs, 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.

The Senate took into consideration the message from the House of
Representatives, and

_Resolved_, That they do concur therein, and that Messrs. READ and PAINE
be of the joint committee on the part of the Senate.

The return of service on the summons to William Blount, made by the
Sergeant-at-arms, pursuant, to the resolution of the Senate of the first
of March last, was read.

Mr. READ reported, from the joint committee appointed for that purpose,
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 on Saturday next at 12 o'clock, in the
Chamber of the House of Representatives.


SATURDAY, December 8.

JAMES ROSS, from the State of Pennsylvania, attended.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
they 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, this day addressed to both Houses
of Congress, was read. [For which see proceedings in the House of
Representatives.]

_Ordered_, That Messrs. STOCKTON, READ, and ROSS, 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, and that the
Speech be printed for the use of the Senate.


MONDAY, December 10.

URIAH TRACY, from the State of Connecticut, attended.


TUESDAY, December 11.

JAMES WATSON, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New
York, in place of John S. Hobart, resigned, produced his credentials,
which were read, and the oath was, by the PRESIDENT, administered to
him, as the law provides.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on
the draft of an Address in answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the session;
which, being read in paragraphs and amended, was adopted, as follows:

      _To the President of the United States:_

      SIR: The Senate of the United States join you in thanks to
      Almighty God for the removal of the late afflicting
      dispensations of his Providence, and for the patriotic
      spirit and general prosperity of our country. Sympathy for
      the sufferings of our fellow-citizens from disease, and the
      important interests of the Union, demand of the National
      Legislature a ready co-operation with the State
      Governments, in the use of such means as seem best
      calculated to prevent the return of this fatal calamity.

      Although we have sincerely wished that an adjustment of our
      differences with the republic of France might be effected
      on safe and honorable terms, yet the information you have
      given us of the ultimate failure of the negotiations has
      not surprised us. In the general conduct of that Republic,
      we have seen a design of universal influence, incompatible
      with the self-government, and destructive of the
      independence of other States. In its conduct towards these
      United States, we have seen a plan of hostility pursued
      with unremitted constancy--equally disregarding the
      obligations of treaties, and the rights of individuals. We
      have seen two embassies formed for the purpose of mutual
      explanations, and clothed with the most extensive and
      liberal powers, dismissed without recognition and even
      without a hearing. The government of France has not only
      refused to repeal, but has recently enjoined the observance
      of its former edict, respecting merchandise of British
      fabric or produce, the property of neutrals, by which the
      interruption of our lawful commerce, and the spoliation of
      the property of our citizens, have again received a public
      sanction. These facts indicate no change of system or
      disposition--they speak a more intelligible language than
      professions of solicitude to avoid a rupture, however
      ardently made. But if, after the repeated proofs we have
      given of a sincere desire for peace, these professions
      should be accompanied by insinuations, implicating the
      integrity with which it has been pursued--if, neglecting
      and passing by the constitutional and authorized agents of
      the Government, they are made through the medium of
      individuals without public character or authority; and,
      above all, if they carry with them a claim to prescribe the
      political qualifications of the Minister of the United
      States to be employed in the negotiation, they are not
      entitled to attention or consideration, but ought to be
      regarded as designed to separate the people from their
      Government, and to bring about by intrigue that which open
      force could not effect.

      We are of opinion with you, sir, that there has nothing yet
      been discovered in the conduct of France which can justify
      a relaxation of the means of defence adopted during the
      last session of Congress, the happy result of which is so
      strongly and generally marked. If the force by sea and land
      which the existing laws authorize should be judged
      inadequate to the public defence, we will perform the
      indispensable duty of bringing forward such other acts as
      will effectually call forth the resources and force of our
      country.

      A steady adherence to this wise and manly policy--a proper
      direction of the noble spirit of patriotism which has
      arisen in our country, and which ought to be cherished and
      invigorated by every branch of the Government, will secure
      our liberty and independence against all open and secret
      attacks.

      We enter on the business of the present session with an
      anxious solicitude for the public good, and shall bestow
      that consideration on the several objects pointed out in
      your communication, which they respectively merit.

      Your long and important services--your talents and
      firmness, so often displayed in the most trying times and
      most critical situations--afford a sure pledge of a zealous
      co-operation in every measure necessary to secure us
      justice and respect.

                          JOHN LAURANCE,
                          _President of the Senate pro tempore_.

_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. STOCKTON 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. Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That the Senate will, to-morrow at 12 o'clock, wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES accordingly.


WEDNESDAY, December 12.

Agreeably to the resolution of yesterday, the Senate waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and the PRESIDENT of the Senate, in
their name, presented the Address then agreed on.

To which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES made the following reply:

      _To the Senate of the United States:_

      GENTLEMEN: I thank you for this Address, so conformable to
      the spirit of our constitution, and the established
      character of the Senate of the United States, for wisdom,
      honor, and virtue.

      I have seen no real evidence of any change of system or
      disposition in the French Republic towards the United
      States. Although the officious interference of individuals,
      without public character or authority, is not entitled to
      any credit, yet it deserves to be considered, whether that
      temerity and impertinence of individuals affecting to
      interfere in public affairs, between France and the United
      States, whether by their secret correspondence or
      otherwise, and intended to impose upon the people, and
      separate them from their Government, ought not to be
      inquired into and corrected.

      I thank you, gentlemen, for your assurances that you will
      bestow that consideration on the several objects pointed
      out in my communication, which they respectively merit.

      If I have participated in that understanding, sincerity,
      and constancy, which have been displayed by my
      fellow-citizens and countrymen, in the most trying times,
      and critical situations, and fulfilled my duties to them, I
      am happy. The testimony of the Senate of the United States,
      in my favor, is a high and honorable reward, which
      receives, as it merits, my grateful acknowledgments. My
      zealous co-operation in measures necessary to secure us
      justice and consideration may be always depended on.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      _December 12, 1798._

The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and proceeded to the
consideration of Executive business.


FRIDAY, December 14.

JOHN E. HOWARD, from the State of Maryland, attended.


MONDAY, December 17.

ALEXANDER MARTIN, from the State of North Carolina, and JAMES HILLHOUSE,
from the State of Connecticut, severally attended.


WEDNESDAY, December 19.

FRANKLIN DAVENPORT, appointed a Senator by the Executive of the State of
New Jersey, in the recess of the Legislature, in the place of John
Rutherford, resigned, produced his credentials; which were read, and,
the oath of office being administered to him as the law provides, he
took his seat in the Senate.


WEDNESDAY, December 26.

JAMES LLOYD, from the State of Maryland, attended.


THURSDAY, December 27.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, Vice President of the United States and President of
the Senate, attended.


MONDAY, December 31.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from JOHN HUNTER,
notifying his resignation of his seat in the Senate.


MONDAY, January 7, 1799.

JOHN BROWN, from the State of Kentucky, and THEODORE SEDGWICK, from the
State of Massachusetts, severally attended.


TUESDAY, January 8.

STEPHENS T. MASON, from the State of Virginia, attended.


MONDAY, January 21.

HENRY TAZEWELL, from the State of Virginia, attended.


THURSDAY, January 24.

The Senate being informed that HENRY TAZEWELL, one of the members from
the State of Virginia, died this morning,

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to take order for
superintending the funeral of the said HENRY TAZEWELL, Esq., and that
the Senate will attend the same, and that notice of the event be given
to the House of Representatives, and that this committee consist of
Messrs. MASON, BROWN, and MARSHALL.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of the Senate, from a sincere
desire of showing every mark of respect due to the memory of HENRY
TAZEWELL, deceased, late a member thereof, will go into mourning for him
one month, by the usual mode of wearing a crape round the left arm.

_Resolved_, That the President of the Senate notify the Executive of
Virginia of the death of HENRY TAZEWELL, late Senator of that State for
the United States.


FRIDAY, January 25.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated the credentials of WILLIAM HILL WELLS,
elected a Senator for the State of Delaware, in the place of Joshua
Clayton, deceased.


WEDNESDAY, January 30.

JOSIAH TATTNALL, from the State of Georgia, attended.


MONDAY, February 4.

WILLIAM HILL WELLS, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State
of Delaware, in place of Joshua Clayton, deceased, attended; and his
credentials being read, and the oath required by law administered to
him, he took his seat in the Senate.


WEDNESDAY, February 6.

The bill sent from the House of Representatives, entitled "An act
further to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States
and France, and the dependencies thereof, and for other purposes," was
read a third time.

On motion to add the following proviso to the fourth section:

      "_Provided_, That a notice of not less than nineteen days
      of the opening commerce with the French Republic, or any
      port or place under the Government thereof, by authority of
      this act, and of not less than thirty days of the
      revocation of any order issued by the PRESIDENT, by virtue
      of this act, shall be given:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 13, nays 14, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Brown, Chipman, Gunn,
      Langdon, Livermore, Lloyd, Marshall, Martin, Mason, Read,
      and Tattnall.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Davenport, Foster, Goodhue, Greene,
      Hillhouse, Latimer, Paine, Ross, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tracy,
      Watson, and Wells.

On motion to amend the motion, to be read as follows:

      "_Provided_, That notice shall be given, of not less than
      thirty days, of the revocation of any order issued by the
      PRESIDENT, by virtue of this act:"

It was determined in the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 10, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Davenport, Foster,
      Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Livermore,
      Lloyd, Marshall, Paine, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tracy, Watson,
      and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Brown, Langdon,
      Martin, Mason, Read, Ross, and Tattnall.

And on the question to agree to the motion thus amended, it was
determined in the negative.

And having agreed to several amendments to the bill, the question on the
final passage thereof, as amended, it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 18, nays 10, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Davenport, Foster,
      Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Livermore,
      Lloyd, Paine, Ross, Sedgwick, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Brown, Gunn, Langdon,
      Marshall, Martin, Mason, Read, and Tattnall.


SATURDAY, February 9.

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill to amend the act,
entitled "An act providing for the sale of the lands of the United
States in the territory north-west of the river Ohio, and above the
mouth of Kentucky River."

On motion to strike out the 8th section of the bill as follows:

      "SEC. 8. _And be it further enacted_, That aliens residing
      within the United States or elsewhere, shall be capable of
      purchasing and holding lands in the territory of the United
      States north-west of the river Ohio, and their heirs may
      succeed to them _ab intestato_, in the same manner as if
      they were citizens; and they may grant, sell, and devise
      the same to whom they may please, whether citizens or
      aliens; and that neither they, their heirs, or assigns,
      shall, so far as may respect the said lands, and the legal
      remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens."

It was determined in the affirmative--yeas 13, nays 11, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Chipman, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse,
      Howard, Martin, Read, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tracy, Watson,
      and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Bloodworth, Brown, Gunn,
      Langdon, Livermore, Marshall, Mason, Ross, and Tattnall.


TUESDAY, February 12.

The bill vesting the power of retaliation, in certain cases, in the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, was read the third time; and, being
amended, the question on the final passage thereof was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 22, nays 2, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Chipman, Davenport,
      Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Latimer,
      Livermore, Lloyd, Marshall, Martin, Paine, Ross, Sedgwick,
      Stockton, Tattnall, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Howard and Langdon.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and
that the title thereof be "An act vesting the power of retaliation, in
certain cases, in the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."


WEDNESDAY, February 13.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter from the Executive of the State
of Virginia, in answer to his of the 24th ultimo, stating that an
appointment to fill the vacancy in the Senate, occasioned by the decease
of Henry Tazewell, would, probably, be deferred to the meeting of their
Legislature.


SATURDAY, February 16.

CHARLES PINCKNEY, elected a Senator by the Legislature of the State of
South Carolina, in place of John Hunter, resigned, produced his
credentials, and the oath prescribed by law being administered to him,
he took his seat in the Senate.

The Senate proceeded to consider the amendments reported by the
committee to the bill giving eventual authority to the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES to augment the Army.

On motion, to agree to the amendment reported to the 7th section, to
read as follows:

      "SEC. 7. _Be it further enacted_, That it shall be lawful
      for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to call forth and
      employ the said volunteers in all cases, and to effect all
      the purposes for which he is authorized to call forth and
      employ the militia, by the act, entitled 'An act to provide
      for the calling forth the militia to execute the laws of
      the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and
      to repeal the act now in force for these purposes:'"

It passed in the affirmative, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Foster, Goodhue, Greene,
      Gunn, Howard, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, Marshall, Paine,
      Ross, Sedgwick, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Langdon, Martin,
      Mason, Pinckney, and Tattnall.


SATURDAY, February 23.

The bill, sent from the House of Representatives, entitled "An act to
grant an additional compensation from the year one thousand seven
hundred and ninety-nine, to certain officers of the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States," was read the second time.

_Ordered_, That it be referred to Messrs. LIVERMORE, PAINE, and WELLS,
to consider and report thereon to the Senate.

The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the committee to whom was
referred the bill to augment the salaries of the principal officers of
the Executive Departments, which was adopted; and

The question to agree to the third reading of the bill as amended, was
determined in the affirmative--yeas 22, nays 3, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bloodworth, Chipman, Davenport,
      Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Laurance,
      Lloyd, Marshall, Martin, Paine, Pinckney, Read, Sedgwick,
      Stockton, Tattnall, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Langdon, Livermore, and Mason.


MONDAY, February 25.

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, authorizing the
acceptance, from the State of Connecticut, of a cession of jurisdiction
of the territory west of Pennsylvania, commonly called the Western
Reserve of Connecticut; and the question on the final passage of the
bill was determined in the affirmative--yeas 16, nays 12, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Chipman, Davenport, Foster, Goodhue, Greene,
      Gunn, Hillhouse, Livermore, Lloyd, Marshall, Paine, Read,
      Sedgwick, Stockton, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bloodworth, Brown, Howard, Langdon,
      Latimer, Laurance, Martin, Mason, Pinckney, Ross, and
      Watson.


FRIDAY, March 1.

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, sent from the House of
Representatives, entitled "An act to establish the Post Office of the
United States."

On motion, to add the following to the amendment of the 17th section:

      "_And, provided_, That all the letters and packets franked
      by any one member, in any one week, shall not exceed thirty
      ounces; and such privilege shall continue:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 13, nays 17, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Davenport, Goodhue, Hillhouse;
      Howard, Livermore, Lloyd, Paine, Ross, Sedgwick, Stockton,
      Watson, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Brown, Chipman,
      Foster, Greene, Gunn, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Marshall,
      Martin, Mason, Pinckney, Read, Tattnall, and Tracy.


SATURDAY, March 2.

The bill, sent from the House of Representatives, entitled "An act
authorizing a detachment from the militia of the United States," was
read the second time.

On the question to agree to the third reading of the bill, it was
determined in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 12, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Foster, Goodhue, Greene,
      Gunn, Howard, Langdon, Laurance, Lloyd, Marshall, Martin,
      Mason, Pinckney, Ross, Tattnall, and Watson.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Davenport, Hillhouse,
      Latimer, Livermore, Paine, Read, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tracy,
      and Wells.


SATURDAY EVENING, March 2.

A message from the House of Representatives, informed the Senate that
the House, having finished the business before them, are about to
adjourn without day.

The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of Executive business.

The Senate, then, resuming Legislative business, adjourned without day.




FIFTH CONGRESS.--THIRD SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, December 3, 1798.

This being the day appointed by the constitution for the annual meeting
of Congress, a number of members of the House of Representatives
assembled in their Chamber.

The following are the names of the members present:

_From New Hampshire._--ABIEL FOSTER, JONATHAN FREEMAN, WILLIAM GORDON,
and PELEG SPRAGUE.

_From Massachusetts._--DWIGHT FOSTER, SAMUEL LYMAN, HARRISON G. OTIS,
GEO. THATCHER, JOSEPH B. VARNUM, and PELEG WADSWORTH.

_From Rhode Island._--THOMAS TILLINGHAST.

_From Connecticut._--SAMUEL W. DANA, CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, and ROGER
GRISWOLD.

_From New York._--DAVID BROOKS, HENRY GLENN, JONATHAN N. HAVENS, and
HEZEKIAH L. HOSMER.

_From New Jersey._--JONATHAN DAYTON, (the Speaker.)

_From Pennsylvania._--DAVID BARD, JOHN CHAPMAN, WILLIAM FINDLAY, ALBERT
GALLATIN, JOHN A. HANNA, BLAIR MCCLENACHAN, and RICHARD THOMAS.

_From Maryland._--GEORGE DENT.

_From Virginia._--JOHN CLOPTON, JOHN DAWSON, DAVID HOLMES, JAMES MACHIR,
and DANIEL MORGAN.

_From North Carolina._--MATTHEW LOCKE, NATHANIEL MACON, and RICHARD
STANFORD.

_From Tennessee._--WILLIAM CHARLES COLE CLAIBORNE.

_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN.

Three new members, to wit: JONATHAN BRACE, returned to serve in this
House as a member for Connecticut, in the room of Joshua Coit, deceased;
ROBERT WALN, returned to serve as a member for Pennsylvania, in the room
of John Swanwick, deceased; and JOSEPH EGGLESTON, returned to serve as a
member for Virginia, in the room of William B. Giles, who has resigned
his seat; appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in
the House.

A little after 12 o'clock the SPEAKER of the House took his chair, the
names of all the members were called over by the Clerk, and there
appearing only forty persons, (fourteen short of a quorum,) a motion was
made to adjourn, and the House adjourned accordingly till to-morrow at
11 o'clock.


TUESDAY, December 4.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, STEPHEN BULLOCK; from
New Jersey, JAMES H. IMLAY; from Pennsylvania, JOHN WILKES KITTERA; from
Maryland, GEORGE BAER, Jr., WILLIAM CRAIK, and SAMUEL SMITH; from
Virginia, ANTHONY NEW, ABRAM TRIGG, JOHN TRIGG, and ABRAHAM VENABLE;
from North Carolina, THOMAS BLOUNT; and from South Carolina, WILLIAM
SMITH; appeared and took their seats in the House.

A new member, to wit: ROBERT BROWN, returned to serve in this House as a
member for Pennsylvania, in the room of Samuel Sitgreaves, appointed a
Commissioner of the United States under the sixth article of the Treaty
of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, with Great Britain, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.

But a quorum of the whole number not being present, the House adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, December 5.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, ISAAC PARKER, JOHN
READ, SAMUEL SEWALL, and WILLIAM SHEPARD; from Connecticut, NATHANIEL
SMITH; from New York, LUCAS ELMENDORPH, JOHN E. VAN ALLEN, and JOHN
WILLIAMS; from New Jersey, JAMES SCHUREMAN; and from South Carolina,
ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER and JOHN RUTLEDGE, Jr., appeared, and took their
seats in the House.

And a quorum consisting of a majority of the whole number, being
present,

The oath or affirmation, 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 administered by Mr.
SPEAKER to the following new members, to wit: JONATHAN BRACE, ROBERT
BROWN, ROBERT WALN, and JOSEPH EGGLESTON, who took their seats in the
House on the third and fourth instant.

_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.


SATURDAY, December 8.

Several other members, to wit: from Connecticut, WILLIAM EDMOND; from
Maryland, JOHN DENNIS and WILLIAM HINDMAN; and from Virginia, THOMAS
EVANS and WALTER JONES, appeared and took their seats in the House.

The House having been called to order, and the journal read, the SPEAKER
observed that the hour was nearly arrived at which the President had
proposed to make his communications to both Houses, and read a
resolution which was usually entered into on such occasions, informing
the Senate that this House is formed, and ready to receive any
communications which the President may be pleased to make to them. The
resolution was adopted, and a message having been sent to the Senate
therewith, the members soon after entered and took the places prepared
for them.

At twelve o'clock, Lieutenant General WASHINGTON, with his Secretary,
Colonel LEAR, Major Generals PINCKNEY and HAMILTON, entered the Hall,
and took their places on the right of the SPEAKER'S chair. The British
and Portuguese Ministers, and the British and Danish Consuls, with their
Secretaries, had their places assigned them on the left of the chair.


_President's Speech._

A few minutes after 12, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, accompanied
by his Secretary, and the Heads of the several Departments of the
Government, appeared. The PRESIDENT having taken his seat, and the
officers of Government theirs, near the general officers, he rose and
addressed the two Houses as follows:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives:_

      While with reverence and resignation we contemplate the
      dispensations of Divine Providence, in the alarming and
      destructive pestilence with which several of our cities and
      towns have been visited, there is cause for gratitude and
      mutual congratulations that the malady has disappeared, and
      that we are again permitted to assemble in safety at the
      seat of Government, for the discharge of our important
      duties. But, when we reflect that this fatal disorder has,
      within a few years, made repeated ravages in some of our
      principal seaports, and with increased malignancy; and,
      when we consider the magnitude of the evils arising from
      the interruption of public and private business, whereby
      the national interests are deeply affected, I think it my
      duty to invite the Legislature of the Union to examine the
      expediency of establishing suitable regulations in aid of
      the health laws of the respective States; for, these being
      formed on the idea that contagious sickness may be
      communicated through the channels of commerce, there seems
      to be a necessity that Congress, who alone can regulate
      trade, should frame a system which, while it may tend to
      preserve the general health, may be compatible with the
      interests of commerce and the safety of the revenue.

      While we think on this calamity, and sympathize with the
      immediate sufferers, we have abundant reason to present to
      the Supreme Being our annual oblations of gratitude for a
      liberal participation in the ordinary blessings of His
      Providence. To the usual subjects of gratitude, I cannot
      omit to add one of the first importance to our well-being
      and safety: I mean that spirit which has arisen in our
      country against the menaces and aggression of a foreign
      nation. A manly sense of national honor, dignity, and
      independence, has appeared, which, if encouraged and
      invigorated by every branch of the Government, will enable
      us to view, undismayed, the enterprises of any foreign
      power, and become the sure foundation of national
      prosperity and glory.

      The course of the transactions in relation to the United
      States and France, which have come to my knowledge during
      your recess, will be made the subject of a future
      communication. That communication will confirm the ultimate
      failure of the measures which have been taken by the
      Government of the United States towards an amicable
      adjustment of differences with that power. You will, at the
      same time, perceive that the French Government appears
      solicitous to impress the opinion that it is averse to a
      rupture with this country, and that it has, in a qualified
      manner, declared itself willing to receive a Minister from
      the United States, for the purpose of restoring a good
      understanding. It is unfortunate for professions of this
      kind that they should be expressed in terms which may
      countenance the inadmissible pretension of a right to
      prescribe the qualifications which a Minister of the United
      States should possess; and that while France is asserting
      the existence of a disposition, on her part, to conciliate
      with sincerity the differences which have arisen, the
      sincerity of a like disposition on the part of the United
      States, of which so many demonstrative proofs have been
      given, should even be indirectly questioned. It is also
      worthy of observation that the decree of the Directory,
      alleged to be intended to restrain the depredations of
      French cruisers on our commerce, has not given, and cannot
      give, any relief; it enjoins them to conform to all the
      laws of France relative to cruising and prizes, while these
      laws are themselves the sources of the depredation of which
      we have so long, so justly, and so fruitlessly complained.

      The law of France enacted in January last, which subjects
      to capture and condemnation neutral vessels and their
      cargoes, if any portion of the latter are of British fabric
      or produce, although the entire property belongs to
      neutrals, instead of being rescinded, has lately received a
      confirmation, by the failure of a proposition for its
      repeal. While this law, which is an unequivocal act of war
      on the commerce of the nations it attacks, continues in
      force, those nations can see in the French Government only
      a power regardless of their essential rights, of their
      independence and sovereignty; and, if they possess the
      means, they can reconcile nothing with their interests and
      honor but a firm resistance.

      Hitherto, therefore, nothing is discoverable in the conduct
      of France which ought to change or relax our measures of
      defence; on the contrary, to extend and invigorate them is
      our true policy. We have no reason to regret that these
      measures have been thus far adopted and pursued; and, in
      proportion as we enlarge our view of the portentous and
      incalculable situation of Europe, we shall discover new and
      cogent motives for the full development of our energies and
      resources.

      But, in demonstrating by our conduct that we do not fear
      war, in the necessary protection of our rights and honor,
      we shall give no room to infer that we abandon the desire
      of peace. An efficient preparation for war can alone ensure
      peace. It is peace that we have uniformly and perseveringly
      cultivated, and harmony between us and France may be
      restored at her option. But to send another Minister,
      without more determinate assurances that he would be
      received, would be an act of humiliation to which the
      United States ought not to submit. It must, therefore, be
      left to France, if she is indeed desirous of accommodation,
      to take the requisite steps. The United States will
      steadily observe the maxims by which they have hitherto
      been governed. They will respect the sacred rites of
      embassy. And with a sincere disposition on the part of
      France to desist from hostility, to make reparation for the
      injuries heretofore inflicted on our commerce, and to do
      justice in future, there will be no obstacle to the
      restoration of a friendly intercourse. In making to you
      this declaration, I give a pledge to France and to the
      world that the Executive authority of this country still
      adheres to the humane and pacific policy which has
      invariably governed its proceedings, in conformity with the
      wishes of the other branches of the Government and of the
      people of the United States. But considering the late
      manifestations of her policy towards foreign nations, I
      deem it a duty deliberately and solemnly to declare my
      opinion, that, whether we negotiate with her or not,
      vigorous preparations for war will be alike indispensable.
      These alone will give to us an equal treaty, and ensure its
      observance.

      Among the measures of preparation which appear expedient, I
      take the liberty to recall your attention to the Naval
      Establishment. The beneficial effects of the small naval
      armament provided under the acts of the last session, are
      known and acknowledged. Perhaps no country ever experienced
      more sudden and remarkable advantages from any measure of
      policy than we have derived from the arming for our
      maritime protection and defence. We ought, without loss of
      time, to lay the foundation for an increase of our Navy to
      a size sufficient to guard our coast, and protect our
      trade. Such a naval force as it is doubtless in the power
      of the United States to create and maintain, would also
      afford to them the best means of general defence, the safe
      transportation of troops and stores to every part of our
      extensive coast. To accomplish this important object, a
      prudent foresight requires that systematical measures be
      adopted for procuring, at all times, the requisite timber
      and other supplies. In what manner this shall be done, I
      leave to your consideration.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      I have directed an estimate of the appropriations which
      will be necessary for the service of the ensuing year to be
      laid before you, accompanied with a view of the public
      receipts and expenditures to a recent period. It will
      afford you satisfaction to infer the great extent and
      solidity of the public resources, from the prosperous state
      of the finances, notwithstanding the unexampled
      embarrassments which have attended commerce. When you
      reflect on the conspicuous examples of a patriotism and
      liberality which have been exhibited by our mercantile
      fellow-citizens, and how great a proportion of the public
      resources depends on their enterprise, you will naturally
      consider, whether their convenience cannot be promoted and
      reconciled with the security of the revenue, by a revision
      of the system by which the collection is at present
      regulated.

      During your recess, measures have been steadily pursued for
      effecting the valuations and returns directed by the act of
      the last session preliminary to the assessment and
      collection of a direct tax. No other delays or obstacles
      have been experienced except such as were expected to arise
      from the great extent of our country, and the magnitude and
      novelty of the operation, and enough has been accomplished
      to assure a fulfilment of the views of the Legislature.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives:_

      I cannot close this Address, without once more adverting to
      our political situation, and inculcating the essential
      importance of uniting in the maintenance of our dearest
      interests: and I trust that, by the temper and wisdom of
      your proceedings, and by a harmony of measures, we shall
      secure to our country that weight and respect to which it
      is so justly entitled.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

UNITED STATES, _December 8, 1798_.

The PRESIDENT having finished his Address, after sitting a few moments,
presented the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of
Representatives, each of them, with a copy of it, and withdrew, and
after him the Heads of Departments, Senators, general officers, foreign
Ministers, &c. The SPEAKER then took his chair, and after calling the
House to order, proceeded, as is usual, to read over the Speech, which
being finished, it was committed to a Committee of the whole House for
Monday, and ordered to be printed. The House then adjourned.


MONDAY, December 10.

A new member, to wit: RICHARD DOBBS SPAIGHT, returned to serve in this
House as a member for North Carolina, in the room of Nathan Bryan,
deceased, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat in the
House; the oath to support the Constitution of the United States having
been first administered to him by the SPEAKER.


_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. DENT in the chair;
when

Mr. SPRAGUE proposed for adoption the following resolution:

      _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 subjects recommended to their consideration.

The resolution was agreed to without objection, and the committee rose
and reported the resolution. The House took it up, concurred in it, and
appointed a committee of five to prepare an answer accordingly.

The committee consists of Messrs. DANA, VENABLE, HARPER, HOSMER, and
BALDWIN.


TUESDAY, December 11.

Two other members, to wit: THOMAS SINNICKSON and MARK THOMPSON, from New
Jersey, appeared and took their seats in the House.


WEDNESDAY, December 12.

Several other members, to wit: from Rhode Island, CHRISTOPHER G.
CHAMPLIN; from Pennsylvania, THOMAS HARTLEY; and from Virginia, CARTER
B. HARRISON; appeared, and took their seats in the House.


_Address to the President._

Mr. DANA, from the committee appointed to draft a respectful Address in
answer to the PRESIDENT'S Speech, made a report, which was committed for
to-morrow.


THURSDAY, December 13.

PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, from the State of New York, appeared, and took his
seat.


_Address to the President._

On motion of Mr. DANA, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the
Whole on the Address yesterday reported, in answer to the Speech of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and Mr. DENT having taken the chair, the
Address was read, as follows, omitting the words printed within
brackets, which were added as amendments: The words printed in italics
were struck out in the discussion, so that the Address to be presented
to the PRESIDENT contains the words printed within brackets, and does
not contain those printed in italics.

      JOHN ADAMS, _President of the United States_--

      SIR: The House of Representatives unite with you in
      deploring the effects of the desolating malady by which the
      seat of Government and other parts of our country have
      recently been visited. In calling our attention to the
      fatality of its repeated ravages, and inviting us to
      consider the expediency of exercising our constitutional
      powers, in aid of the health laws of the respective States,
      your recommendation is sanctioned by the dictates of
      humanity and liberal policy. On this interesting subject we
      feel the necessity of adopting every wise expedient for
      preventing a calamity so distressing to individual
      sufferers, and so prejudicial to our national commerce.

      That our finances are in a prosperous state,
      notwithstanding the commercial derangements resulting from
      this calamity, and from external embarrassments, is a
      satisfactory manifestation of the great extent and solidity
      of the public resources. Connected with this situation of
      our fiscal concerns, the assurance that the legal
      provisions for obtaining revenue by direct taxation will
      fulfil the views of the Legislature, is peculiarly
      acceptable.

      Desirous as we are that all causes of hostility may be
      _exterminated_ [removed] by the amicable adjustment of
      national differences, we learn with satisfaction, that in
      pursuance of our treaties with Spain and with Great
      Britain, advances have been made for definitively settling
      the controversies relative to the Southern and the
      North-eastern limits of the United States. With similar
      sentiments have we received your information, that the
      proceedings under commissions authorized by the same
      treaties, afford to a respectable portion of our citizens,
      the prospect of a final decision on their claims for
      maritime injuries committed by subjects of those powers.

      It would be the theme of mutual felicitation, were we
      assured of experiencing similar moderation and justice from
      _another Power_, [the French Republic,] between _whom_
      [which] and the United States differences have unhappily
      arisen. But this is denied us by the ultimate failure of
      the measures which have been taken by this Government
      towards an amicable adjustment of those differences, and by
      the various inadmissible pretensions on the part of that
      nation.

      The continuing in force the decree of January last, to
      which you have more particularly pointed our attention,
      ought, of itself, to be considered as demonstrative of the
      real intentions of the French Government. That decree
      proclaims a predatory warfare against the unquestionable
      rights of actual commerce; which [with] our means of
      defence, our interest and our honor, command us to repel.
      It therefore now becomes the United States to be as
      determined in resistance as they have been patient in
      suffering, and condescending in negotiation.

      While those who direct the affairs of France persist in the
      enforcement of decrees so hostile to our essential rights,
      their conduct forbids us to confide in any of their
      professions of amity.

      As therefore the conduct of France hitherto exhibits
      nothing which ought to change or relax our measures of
      defence, the policy of extending and invigorating those
      measures, demands our sedulous attention. The sudden and
      remarkable advantages which this country has experienced
      from a small naval armament, sufficiently prove the utility
      of its establishment. As it respects the guarding of our
      coast, the protection of our trade, and the facility of
      safely transporting the means of territoral defence to
      every part of our maritime frontier, an adequate naval
      force must be considered as an important object of national
      policy. Nor do we hesitate to adopt the opinion, that,
      whether negotiations with France are resumed or not,
      vigorous preparations for war will be alike indispensable.

      In this conjuncture of affairs, while with you we recognize
      our abundant cause of gratitude to the Supreme Disposer of
      events for the ordinary blessings of Providence, we regard,
      as of high national importance, the manifestation, in our
      country, of a magnanimous spirit of resistance to foreign
      domination. This spirit merits to be cherished and
      invigorated by every branch of Government, as the estimable
      pledge of national prosperity and glory.

      Disdaining a reliance on foreign protection, wanting no
      foreign guarantee of our liberties, resolving to maintain
      our national independence against every attempt to despoil
      us of this inestimable treasure, we confide, under
      Providence, in the patriotism and energies of the people of
      these United States for defeating the hostile enterprises
      of any foreign power.

      To adopt with prudent foresight such systematical measures
      as may be expedient for calling forth those energies
      wherever the national exigencies may require, whether on
      the ocean, or on our own territory--and to reconcile with
      the proper security of revenue, the convenience of the
      mercantile enterprise, on which so great a proportion of
      the public resources depends--are objects of moment, which
      shall be duly regarded in the course of our deliberations.

      Fully as we accord with you in the opinion, that the United
      States ought not to submit to the humiliation of sending
      another Minister to France, without previous assurances
      sufficiently determinate that he will be duly accredited,
      we have heard, with cordial _acquiescence_, [approbation,]
      the declaration of your purpose, steadily to observe those
      maxims of humane and pacific policy by which the United
      States have hitherto been governed. While it is left with
      France to take the requisite steps for accommodation, it is
      worthy the Chief Magistrate of a free people, to make known
      to the world, that justice on the part of France will
      annihilate every obstacle to the restoration of a friendly
      intercourse, and that the Executive authority of this
      country will respect the sacred rights of embassy. At the
      same time, the wisdom and decision, which have
      characterized your past Administration, assure us that no
      illusory professions will seduce you into any abandonment
      of the rights which belong to the United States as [a] free
      and independent [nation.]

The clerk having read the Address, it was again read by the Chairman by
paragraphs.

      [After a few slight amendments the answer was agreed to.]

Mr. THATCHER wished, as no objection was made to the Address, that it
might be entered on the journals as unanimously agreed to; but, on the
question being put, a few noes being heard, the SPEAKER declared it not
carried.

The usual resolution was then passed, that the SPEAKER, attended by the
House, do present the Address, and that a committee be appointed to wait
upon the PRESIDENT, to know when and where he will be pleased to receive
the same.

Messrs. DANA, VENABLE, and HARPER, were appointed a committee for this
purpose. They waited upon the PRESIDENT accordingly, and Mr. DANA
reported that the PRESIDENT would receive the Address to-morrow, at his
own house, at twelve o'clock.[37]


FRIDAY, December 14.

Several other members, to wit: JAMES COCHRAN, from New York; WILLIAM
MATTHEWS, from Maryland; JOSIAH PARKER, from Virginia; and THOMAS
PINCKNEY, from South Carolina, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.


_Answer of the President._

The hour having arrived at which the PRESIDENT had appointed to receive
the Address of this House in answer to his Speech to both Houses, the
SPEAKER announced it, and the House withdrew for the purpose of
presenting the Address.

In about a quarter of an hour, the members returned; when the SPEAKER,
having taken his chair, proceeded to read the answer to their Address, a
copy of which had been put into his hand by the PRESIDENT. It was as
follows:

      _To the House of Representatives of the United States:_

      GENTLEMEN: My sincere acknowledgments are due to the House
      of Representatives of the United States, for this excellent
      Address, so consonant to the character of Representatives
      of a great and free people. The judgment and feelings of a
      nation, I believe, were never more truly expressed by their
      Representatives than those of our constituents, by your
      decided declaration, that with our means of defence, our
      interest and honor command us to repel a predatory warfare
      against the unquestionable rights of a neutral commerce.
      That it becomes the United States to be as determined in
      resistance as they have been patient in suffering and
      condescending in negotiation. That, while those who direct
      the affairs of France persist in the enforcement of decrees
      so hostile to our essential rights, their conduct forbids
      us to confide in any of their professions of amity; that an
      adequate naval force must be considered as an important
      object of national policy; and that, whether negotiations
      with France are resumed or not, vigorous preparations for
      war will be alike indispensable.

      The generous disdain you so coolly and deliberately
      express, of a reliance on foreign protection, wanting no
      foreign guaranty of our liberties, resolving to maintain
      our national independence against every attempt to despoil
      us of this inestimable treasure, will meet the full
      approbation of every sound understanding, and exulting
      applauses from the heart of every faithful American.

      I thank you, gentlemen, for your candid approbation of my
      sentiments on the subject of negotiation, and for the
      declaration of your opinion, that the policy of extending
      and invigorating our measures of defence, and the adoption
      with prudent foresight of such systematical measures as may
      be expedient for calling forth the energies of our country,
      wherever the national exigencies may require, whether on
      the ocean or on our own territory, will demand your most
      sedulous attention.

      At the same time, I take the liberty to assure you, it
      shall be my vigilant endeavor, that no illusory professions
      shall seduce me into an abandonment of the rights which
      belong to the United States, as a free and independent
      nation.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _December 14, 1798_.


MONDAY, December 31.

Several other members, viz: from Connecticut, JOHN ALLEN; and from
Virginia, SAMUEL J. CABELL and THOMAS CLAIBORNE, appeared, and took
their seats in the House.


_Remonstrance of Georgia._

      RECLAMATION FOR SACRIFICED TERRITORY--COMPARATIVE
      EXPENDITURE IN DEFENDING NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN FRONTIERS
      FROM INDIAN DEPREDATIONS.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
report of a select committee on the representation and remonstrance of
the State of Georgia; which was read as follows:

      "Report of the committee to whom was referred the
      representation and remonstrance of the Legislature of the
      State of Georgia:

      "That a certain tract of country, within the limits of
      Georgia, bounded by a line beginning at the fork of Oconee
      and Ocmulgee Rivers, and thence running in a south-west
      direction, until it intersects the most southern part of
      St. Mary's River, thence down the river to the old line,
      was ceded by the Creek nation of Indians, to the said
      State, by a treaty held between the Commissioner of said
      State, and the Creek Indians at Galphinton, on the 12th of
      November, 1785, which tract of country was, by the
      Legislature of said State, formed into a county, by the
      name of Talessee county; and the cession thereof was
      afterward confirmed, at a treaty held between the same
      parties, at Shoulderbone, on the 3d day of November, 1786.

      "Your committee further report, that, by the treaty made at
      New York, between the United States and the Creek Indians,
      bearing date on the 7th day of August, 1790, a boundary
      line was established between the said nation of Indians and
      the United States, whereby the above described tract of
      country, named Talessee county, was declared to be within
      the Indian territory.

      "The committee have not been able to discover upon what
      principles the relinquishment of the territory of the State
      of Georgia was acceded to on the part of the United States;
      it is therefore to be presumed that it was done upon
      principles of general policy, with the intention of
      establishing a permanent peace between the United States
      and the said nation. They are, therefore, of opinion that
      compensation ought to be made to the State of Georgia for
      the loss of this territory, and recommend to the House to
      adopt the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That the United States will make compensation
      to the State of Georgia, for the loss and damage sustained
      by that State, in consequence of the cession of the county
      of Talessee, made to the Creek nation, by the Treaty of New
      York, unless it shall be deemed expedient to extinguish the
      Indian title to the said land."

Mr. BALDWIN said, he should not call for the reading of the
remonstrance, as it had already been twice read, and had also been
published in the newspapers. The committee in their report have stated
such parts of it as they thought necessary to lead the House to a
decision. It is seen at once to relate to two objects: what they
consider as a dismemberment of the State, by giving back to the Indians
a district of country, called Talessee county, and the injurious
operation of the act for regulating trade and intercourse with the
Indians. He was himself at New York at the time when the treaty, called
the Treaty of New York, was made; he knew well it was with great concern
and reluctance that the Federal Government consented to an act which had
so much the appearance of dismembering a State, as giving back Talessee
county to the Indians; but that frontier was so extensive, the savages
who border upon it were so much more numerous and hostile than any
others in the United States, that they were induced to consent for a
time to the relinquishment of that district to them, as the counterpart
of all the other conditions which they obtained in that treaty. He was
sure it was at that time their expectation and design to have before now
peaceably repurchased it of the Indians. The act was not founded on any
defect in the right of the State to that county; but a short time
before, three Commissioners, viz: Gen. Lincoln, Judge Griffin, a former
member of Congress, and Mr. Humphreys, who is now our Minister at
Madrid, were sent to examine into the state of that frontier, and to
form treaties with the neighboring tribes; they were unwearied in the
execution of their trust, visited the frontier in person, collected the
Indian chiefs to meet them there, to learn what information they could
give; they afterwards returned to the seat of Government of Georgia, and
examined the treaties, laws, and journals, and examined individuals on
oath, so as to obtain all the information that it was possible to
procure, on the spot. On their return they made a special and very full
report, a copy of which is on the files of the House, and, without
doubt, is to be regarded on those subjects as a document paramount to
every thing else, at the time it was made. This document leaves no doubt
of the fairness of the transaction in the treaties of 1785 and 1786, in
which this Talessee county was purchased and contained, as stated by the
committee. The giving it back, by the subsequent Treaty of New York,
rested only on the importance and urgency of the case, as the only
possible means of obtaining peace.

On the other point contained in the remonstrance, viz: the injurious
operation of the law respecting trade and intercourse with the Indian
tribes, he did not think it necessary now to make many observations, the
report of the committee was, that it should be revised and amended; as
that law expires by its own limitation with this session, it is a
subject that must be taken up, and at that time he should submit to the
consideration of the House the various matters which seemed to impress
themselves so strongly upon the minds of his constituents.

Mr. B. said, the report of the committee was peculiarly grateful to him,
and he hoped the confirmation of it by Congress would be so to his
constituents, because the individuals who composed the committee were so
long and so well known in the United States, that their report will be
likely to have a great effect in finally settling the minds of people on
those old subjects of reproach and discord, especially as it is in
direct conformity with the copious report of the three Commissioners who
examined into the same subject on the spot, as he had before mentioned.
This appeared to him to be a matter of great importance.

From the close of the Revolution to the present time, these reproaches
have always been at the threshold, to encounter every thing that was
proposed in behalf of that growing and important part of the United
States. The Revolution had raged there to such a degree, and the minds
of men were so embittered against each other, that it required more than
the usual time for them to lay aside the fierceness of their hostility.
Though their enemies were driven from them, yet they were not driven
beyond the recoil of their resentment. This, joined to the
disappointment of some pecuniary enterprises of individuals for gain,
had been the cause of those malignant torrents of reproach which have
but too long poured forth upon the greater part of their councils, and
upon the most distinguished of their public servants.

It was well known to him, and to some who heard him, that their calls
for protection on a very extensive and very turbulent frontier, had,
till within these few years, always been repelled with reproaches, that
they had never been any thing but an expense; were totally delinquent in
bearing the burdens of the Revolution; that they had been carried
through entirely at the expense of the other States; and that they ought
not now to be protected any further till they were willing to pay
requisitions. When this reproach was wiped off by the report of the
General Board of Commissioners, on the settlement of the whole account
of the old co-partnership of the Confederation, and the very small
number there, at that time, appeared to have done the proportion of the
whole number by the census which was the rule of the settlement, and to
have reimbursed the great delinquency of the loan officers appointed by
Congress, for which they were made accountable, still they were told
they must protect themselves, for they wronged the Indians out of their
lands, and this was the cause of their suffering. It appears now, in the
result, that they have always discharged all their Federal obligations,
and much more, and instead of getting away the lands from the Indians,
the Indians have got away their lands, and they cannot get them back.

He believed there could not be much doubt left but that the principles
contained in the report of the committee were just and proper. These had
been to him for many years very sore objects; the position in which he
considered them immovably fixed gave him great pleasure. His
constituents had not sent him here to play the champion. He thought it
could not be denied that there was some ground for them to triumph over
those who had so long vilified and abused them. He begged leave still
further to urge the measures recommended by the committee, from the
consideration of the small expenditures which have been made on that
frontier, in proportion to the others.

The accounts of the military expenditures on the northern frontiers,
were now more than ten millions of dollars. This had been begun, and
principally originated from a regular expedition to destroy a village of
fugitive Indians, who committed depredations on the northern frontier; a
similar village on the southern frontier, called the Chehaw, was also
destined by the Government for a similar expedition; but the measure
failed in the Legislature, and that frontier was left to protect
themselves. This has been done; the fugitives in that village have been
driven off by a party of volunteers. He believed the whole amount of
military expenditures on that frontier, till the time of entire peace
with the Indians, did not exceed a quarter of a million, and nearly one
hundred thousand of that the militia had now been kept out of for four
or five years; though he hoped and trusted they would not much longer
have cause of complaint on that head. After the observations which he
had made, he thought no apology was necessary for some apparent
harshness in the language of the remonstrance.

As to the course which it is proper to pursue in granting relief on the
subject, he had not much to say. He was confident the expectations of
the State were not unreasonable; he was sure they would be satisfied
with any result which could be considered as fair and honorable; and his
confidence in the House forbade him to suppose for a moment that it
could be brought to any other. The course recommended by the committee
in their resolution now under consideration, is either to make
compensation to the State for the land which has been relinquished, and
for the damages which they have sustained, or else to repurchase that
district or another district, on that frontier, of equal value. He said
he had laid on the table a certificate from the Surveyor General of that
State, taken at that time, as to the length of the lines enclosing that
district, and the probable contents of it. If the report of the
committee should be agreed to, a bill might be reported in conformity
to one or the other, or all of those principles, as might be thought
proper. He was contented in leaving it to the judgment of the House.

On the call of Mr. BROOKS, the representation and remonstrance were
read. After which,

Mr. CHAMPLIN moved that the committee might rise, with a view of
postponing this subject till the next session of Congress. He thought
the language of the remonstrance too violent and indecorous to claim
attention from the House. This opinion was also supported by Mr. DANA.
Messrs. BAYARD and N. SMITH wished this motion to prevail, because they
doubted the propriety of the report, and supposed there would not be
time thoroughly to investigate the business during this session.

On the other hand, Messrs. PINCKNEY, RUTLEDGE, HARPER, GALLATIN,
VENABLE, W. CLAIBORNE, J. PARKER, and MACON, were against the
postponement. The objection to the language, it was said, was out of
time. If made at all, it ought to have been made when the remonstrance
was presented; that some allowance ought to be made for the language, as
it appeared to have been drawn in a moment of passion; that if the claim
was just, it ought not to be rejected because it was made in improper
language, especially, since the Legislature of Georgia were not the only
persons concerned, as the inhabitants on the frontier, while this
subject is undecided, are suffering severely from Indian cruelties and
depredations.

The question for leave to be given to the committee to sit again, was
carried by 69 votes.


TUESDAY, January 8, 1799.

_Impressment of Seamen._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

      In compliance with your desire, expressed in your
      resolution of the 2d of this month, I lay before you an
      extract of a letter from George C. Morton, acting Consul of
      the United States at Havana, dated the 13th of November,
      1798, to the Secretary of State, with a copy of a letter
      from him to L. Trezevant and William Timmons, Esqs., with
      their answer. Although your request extends no further than
      to such information as has been received, yet it may be a
      satisfaction to you to know that as soon as this
      intelligence was communicated to me, circular orders were
      given, by my direction, to all the commanders of our
      vessels of war; a copy of which is also herewith
      transmitted. I also direct this intelligence and these
      orders to be communicated to His Britannic Majesty's Envoy
      Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United
      States, and to our Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of
      Great Britain, with instructions to him to make the proper
      representation to that Government upon this subject.

      It is but justice to say that this is the first instance of
      misbehavior of any of the British officers towards our
      vessels of war, that has come to my knowledge. According to
      all the representations that I have seen, the flag of the
      United States, and their officers and men, have been
      treated by the civil and military authority of the British
      nation, in Nova Scotia, the West India Islands and on the
      ocean, with uniform civility, politeness, and friendship. I
      have no doubt that this first instance of misconduct will
      be readily corrected.

      _Jan. 8, 1799._

                          JOHN ADAMS.


[CIRCULAR.]

      _To the Commanders of Armed Vessels in the service of the
      United States; given at the Navy Department, December 29,
      1798._

      SIR: It is the positive command of the PRESIDENT, that on
      no pretence whatever, you permit the public vessel of war
      under your command to be detained, or searched, nor any of
      the officers or men belonging to her to be taken from her,
      by the ships or vessels of any foreign nation, so long as
      you are in a capacity to repel such outrage on the honor of
      the American flag. If force should be exerted to compel
      your submission, you are to resist that force to the utmost
      of your power, and when overpowered by superior force, you
      are to strike your flag, and thus yield your vessel, as
      well as your men; but never your men without your vessel.

      You will remember, however, that your demeanor be
      respectful and friendly to the vessels and people of all
      nations in amity with the United States; and that you avoid
      as carefully the commission of, as the submission to,
      insult or injury.

      I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

                          BEN. STODDERT.

Letters which accompanied the above Message:

      _Extract of a letter from George C. Morton, acting Consul
      of the United States at the Havana, dated there the 18th
      November, 1798, to the Secretary of State._

      "By the delegation of Daniel Hawley, Esq., I am at present
      acting as Consul of the United States in this district,
      with which he will most probably have acquainted you. It
      imposes upon me the mortifying task of informing you, sir,
      of the partial capture of an American fleet under the
      convoy of the Baltimore sloop-of-war, ---- Phillips, Esq.,
      commander, by a British squadron, off this harbor,
      accompanied with circumstances rather grating to the
      feelings of Americans, and by no means analogous to that
      good harmony which seems to subsist between the two
      Governments.

      "The answer of Messrs. Trezevant and Timmons to my annexed
      note of the 17th instant, requesting an exact relation of
      the occurrence, will I presume be deemed as impartial a
      narration as can be given of the whole transaction, they
      having been passengers on board one of the captured
      vessels, and removed to the Baltimore.

      "Mr. Morton adds, that Commodore Loring ordered the
      fifty-five men out of the Baltimore "on board of his ship,
      previous to any proposal of exchanging the natives of one
      nation for those of the other, and retained five of the
      hands as being British subjects, without giving an equal
      number of Americans, whom he acknowledged to have on
      board.""

                          HAVANA, _November, 17, 1798_.

      GENTLEMEN: As acting American Consul for this city and
      district, and of course obliged to forward the most
      correct statement possible to the Government of the United
      States officially, I would beg the favor of you, gentlemen,
      to furnish me with an exact relation, under your
      signatures, of the unpleasant occurrence which took place
      off the Moro Castle on the 16th instant, by which you will
      much oblige,

                          Gentlemen, your most obedient servant,
                          GEO. C. MORTON.

      L. TREZEVANT and W. TIMMONS, Esqs.

      N. B.--It would be proper to premise that you were
      passengers, and your distance from the Moro Castle at the
      time of capture.

                          G. C. M.

             *       *       *       *       *

                          HAVANA, _November 18, 1798_.

      SIR: Agreeably to your request, we now commit to writing
      the best account we are able to give you of the conduct of
      Captain Loring, Commodore of the British squadron which was
      lately off the Moro, towards the United States ship
      Baltimore. We must observe, however, that all we can say of
      it is from the information of Captain Phillips, as we were
      not on board the Baltimore when she was visited by Captain
      L.'s officers.

      In the morning of the 16th instant, we discovered this
      squadron when we were in sight of the Moro, and afterwards
      found it was composed of Captain Loring's ship, the
      Carnatic, of 74 guns; Captain ----'s ship, the Thunderer,
      of the same force; Captain Dobson's ship, the Queen, of 98
      guns; Captain Donnelly's frigate, the Maidstone, of 32
      guns; and Captain Hardy's frigate the Greyhound, of the
      same force. We were passengers in the brig Norfolk, Captain
      Butler, which, together with the ship Eliza, Captain Baas,
      and the brig Friendship, Captain Fuller, were cut off from
      their entrance into port, and were all made prizes within
      gunshot of the Moro. We obtained leave to go on board the
      Baltimore with our baggage, and did so. When Captain
      Phillips discovered they were English ships, (which was
      before we were taken,) he stood towards them, and spoke the
      Commodore. After we got on board the Baltimore, the Captain
      informed us that he had been on board the Carnatic, and the
      Commodore told him he should take out of the Baltimore all
      such men as had not American protections; that he had
      remonstrated with him against showing such an indignity to
      our flag; that to do so would leave his ship in a very
      defenceless state, and would deprive him of nearly all his
      men, as not even those who were really Americans, or at
      least very few of them, could show protections, because it
      was always thought that our flag on board of a Government
      ship, was a sufficient protection. All this, however, was
      urged in vain. Captain P. returned to his ship, and the
      Commodore sent an officer on board the Baltimore, who
      carried away fifty-five of her men to the Carnatic. Captain
      Phillips remained in expectation that nearly all the rest
      would be taken from him; but whether the Commodore, upon
      reflection, thought better of it, or whatever else might
      have been his motive, he sent back fifty, and kept five,
      among whom was the ship's boatswain. Captain Loring
      proposed to give up a number of American seamen, who, he
      said, were in his fleet, if Captain P. would give him
      English subjects for them. Captain P. refused this offer,
      and the American seamen were not delivered to him. Before
      any of the men were returned, he sent a message to Captain
      P. to let him know if he, or one of his officers, would go
      on board of him, and point out who were Americans and who
      were not, he would return all the Americans; but this was
      declined also. After we got on board the Baltimore, he sent
      a letter to Captain P. which he showed to us, in which the
      Commodore "demanded" that he would give up all the British
      subjects on board the Baltimore. To this, Captain P.
      replied that he could not know any of his men as British
      subjects, nor could he, as commander of a ship, in the
      service of the United States, voluntarily give up any of
      his men; but if he thought fit to send an officer on board,
      with orders to take any number of his men, he should not
      oppose it. In this answer, Captain P. mentioned he should
      lay before the Executive of the United States a full
      account of the occurrences of the day. Shortly after
      sending this reply, the squadron set sail, and left the
      Baltimore. Commodore L. was very polite to us, and was so
      to Captain P. when he went on board; but Captain P.
      complained of indecent behavior from the inferior officers.

                          LEWIS TREZEVANT,
                          WM. TIMMONS.

      G. C. MORTON, Esq., _Vice Consul of the U. S. at Havana_.

The Message and documents were read, and ordered to lie on the table.


MONDAY, January 14.

EDWARD LIVINGSTON, from New York, appeared, and took his seat.


MONDAY, January 21.

_Intercourse with France, and her Islands._

SAN DOMINGO.

The fourth section of the bill to suspend this intercourse being under
consideration,

Mr. NICHOLAS said, there are some words in this section [in italics]
which he did not understand, and if he could not get an explanation of
them in any other way, he would move to strike them out. They are not in
the former law; and they are very extensive. They go to this, that a man
in authority in one of these islands, be his authority as limited as it
may, may make an agreement on the subject of intercourse different from
what he is authorized to do by the Republic of France, and, in that
case, the island is to be open for our commerce. He wished for some
information on this subject.

Mr. S. SMITH understood, that the reason why these words had been
introduced into the bill was, in order to meet the case of
Hispaniola.[38] It was well known that a new agent had succeeded
Hedouville there; that he has published a proclamation, stating, that
notwithstanding the decree of the French Republic, which directs the
seizure of all American vessels and their cargoes, whenever there shall
be found on board an article of British manufacture, he was authorized
to suspend that decree so far as relates to vessels coming to that
island. And, Mr. S. said, if any agent in the West Indies could give
assurances that no capture should take place from the island of which
he is Governor, then the PRESIDENT shall be authorized to open our
commerce with that Island. It was on this ground that he had given his
consent to this clause of the bill.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, if the clause were intended to meet the case to which
the gentleman had alluded, the agent had his powers from the French
Government, and whatever he did must be considered as done by that
Government, until his power shall be revoked; but as the clause stood,
it would authorize the PRESIDENT to treat with usurpers; not merely with
persons in power, but with any persons having momentary possession of a
place, and he could not agree to such a principle. Why, asked Mr. N.,
was this law originally passed? Was it not an order to bring France to
terms by distressing her islands? Suppose France should say to one of
her agents in the West Indies, "You shall be authorized to make a
stipulation with the United States to take off the suspension of
intercourse with respect to your Island." Would not this be to
acknowledge that there our regulation pinched her? And would not the
opening of intercourse with such a place, by relieving the distresses of
France, defeat the original intention of the law? [Mr. HARPER asked if
there was any question before the committee?] Mr. N. said he would make
one by moving to strike out this section. A clause of this kind, Mr. N.
said, held out an invitation to agents to abandon their country, and to
set up Governments of their own. If it were to operate only in a partial
manner, for the relief of such of the French islands as are so far
distressed as that the Government should be willing to restrain her
depredations, so far as related to those particular places, where will
be the efficiency of the law afterwards? It will only prove a burden
upon our own citizens, without injuring France. If we are to have a free
trade with the West Indies, why deprive tobacco planters of going
immediately to the country where the article is consumed, instead of
going through Spain, and by other circuitous routes? But the other
aspect of the bill, Mr. N. said, was the most extraordinary and
exceptionable he ever saw. It authorized the PRESIDENT to treat with
persons "claiming authority." This provision may produce consequences
the most fatal. Suppose any of the islands make a separate negotiation
with this country; what will be the effect of our having thus enticed
them to disobey their Government? Will this Government not be chargeable
with having assisted in detaching such a colony from its Government? And
if so, could any thing afford a more lasting cause for war than an act
of this kind? If there be any disposition in the French Government to
treat, (which, however, the Secretary of State denies,) a conduct of
this kind would effectually root it out, and there could be no
treaty--no peace between the two countries--for years to come. If
gentlemen, therefore, can give no better explanation of this clause
than has already been given, he hoped it would be stricken out.

Mr. OTIS did not believe that a more unjustifiable jealousy ever entered
the heated imagination of the gentleman from Virginia, than that which
occupies it at this moment. He seems to think that this section of the
bill is intended only to encourage usurpation and rebellion, whereas a
slight attention should convince him, that when any one of the French
islands or dependencies revolt and declare for independence, neither the
law passed the last session nor this bill will apply to such a case. In
such an event, there is nothing in the existing laws to prevent our
carrying on a free trade with such revolted island. If attention be paid
to the first section of the bill, it will be seen to apply only to such
places as are under the acknowledged government of France; and the
moment a place is no longer under her government, both the existing law
and this section become null with respect to that place, and a new
relation would be created which would be regulated under the law of
nations. If a rebellion of this kind should break out, it would become a
question to what extent we ought to carry on commerce with the
rebellious place; and we should then be governed by existing
circumstances. If we should be at war with France, we should doubtless,
said Mr. O., avail ourselves of the trade to its full extent, without
respect to her wishes; but if an accommodation of differences should be
effected, and the mother country should prohibit all trade with the
revolters, it is not presumable that this Government would sanction any
commerce that would provoke a war, or protect adventurers from the
seizure and confiscation of their property.

But it is not enough, observed Mr. O., to say that this section does not
relate to rebellious colonies; it is merely a provision to meet such
conditions as the agents of the Executive Directory are entitled to
make, consistently with their allegiance to their own country--such at
least as they constantly undertake to propose. Without assuming to
define the powers of these agents, it was very clear that they have
undertaken to dispense with the decrees and laws of the Republic,
whenever the exigencies of their Governments have, in their opinion,
made it necessary or convenient.

At St. Domingo and at Guadaloupe, the agents seem to exercise an
unlimited control over the trade and maritime concerns of those islands.
He presumed they had a discretionary right given to them to relax or
suspend many of the decrees of the mother country, with respect to the
territory they are appointed to govern. The uniform conduct of Santhonax
and Polverel, and of all the Commissioners at St. Domingo, show this to
be the case; and at Guadaloupe, Victor Hugues has proved himself to be
nothing less than a despot. If this bill passed, these Commissioners may
open the commerce with this country, even though an open war should
exist between this nation and France. Nay, Mr. O. said, he had a
proclamation of Hedouville, the late agent at Cape Francois, in his
hand, which shows that he had determined to adopt this line of conduct.

[Mr. O. read the proclamation which states that neutral ships and
cargoes, that provisions and dry goods, shall be admitted into St.
Domingo in American bottoms, that they shall not be seized when destined
for French ports, but pass unmolested by French cruisers even if war
should break out between the mother country and the United States.]

Now, said Mr. O., the interests of this country, and of our mercantile
citizens in particular, require us to place ourselves in a situation to
meet these advances. Can there be any difficulty in giving to the
PRESIDENT a power with respect to the trade with a part of the French
dominions, which he at present possesses over the whole? Gentlemen have
said that an agent has arrived from a usurper in St. Domingo. Mr. O.
said he did not know the fact. He did not know of any usurper in St.
Domingo. He believed General Toussaint had succeeded Hedouville in the
government of that island; that he had, in imitation of his superiors,
sent him off in the same way as in the mother country are sent off those
who may be obnoxious to the designs of the reigning and the strongest
party. But it does not follow that these measures of General Toussaint
will not be ratified by the French Government. The same General had
heretofore sent off the commissioner Santhonax. He was not, however, for
this cause declared to have forfeited his allegiance, but pains were
taken to appease and reconcile him, and Santhonax came back. He was
afterwards succeeded by Hedouville, who is, in his turn, sent on a
voyage to France. But, said Mr. O., shall we now begin to examine into
the legality of the powers of persons in authority, either in France or
in her West India possessions? Have we not uniformly adhered to the
principle that those who exercise power _de facto_ are the only persons
that we are bound to recognize? From the first dawn of the Revolution,
we have, said he, never questioned the legitimacy of the power exercised
in France; to us it seemed indifferent whether Jacobins or Girondists
were at the helm of affairs; whether it was a reign of terror or of
moderation. We have constantly sung hosannas and offered adorations to
the great Republic, one and indivisible, without considering by whose
hands the power was exercised. It is now too late to change this system.
We have no way of knowing, said Mr. O., whether the agents of the
Directory act in conformity to the will of their masters or not, until
the Government declares them out of their allegiance. It will then be
soon enough for us to determine the posture which good faith and policy
require us to take.

But, the gentleman from Virginia says, we ought not to treat with
individuals under any circumstances; but it appears probable that the
French Republic may permit her agents to carry on this commerce, and to
give us satisfactory assurances of safety and protection without a
treaty; and such an arrangement would be advantageous to that Republic.

We find, indeed, said Mr. O., from the papers on the table, that one of
the complaints of that Government is founded on this suspension of
intercourse, and therefore to restore the trade in part is to diminish
the cause of complaint. With respect to the remark of the gentleman from
Virginia, that it was the object of the original act, by distressing
France, to bring her to terms, he differed in opinion from him. It was
merely a defensive measure. Our trade became so insecure, that it was
necessary to do--what? conquer France? No; but to prevent the ruin which
threatened our citizens, by prohibiting all intercourse with that
country and its dependencies; and whenever an end is put to those
aggressions and depredations, the suspension may be removed.

This, said Mr. O., is not a novel practice. At the commencement of the
late war, the citizens of the Bahamas were excepted from the general
regulations and orders prescribed to our privateers. It is very possible
to be at war with a nation, and yet at peace with a certain portion of
its territory. We find, by the papers on our table, that France says her
privateers have transgressed their authority, and that they have now
determined that no commissions shall be issued, except by their agents.
Let us be prepared to meet them, if they will act accordingly; and if
their agents in the Colonies restrain privateering, and depredations
within their respective jurisdictions, let us avail ourselves of their
good dispositions without any nice inquiries.

Mr. O. had said, that this law had no allusion to any country in
rebellion; but he could conceive it possible that St. Domingo may
declare itself independent, and become so, in spite of the opposition of
France, or the wishes of this country. Far be it from me, continued Mr.
O., to contend that it is desirable for the interest of the United
States that such an event should happen; such a doctrine at this moment
would be unseasonable and improper; but, if it does take place, he might
say, without offence, it would be good policy to be upon the best terms
with the persons in authority there; if not, the inhabitants of that
island may become pirates upon our trade, and do us more mischief than
we formerly suffered from the Barbary Powers. To prevent which, let us
feed and clothe them, and deprive them of inducements to quit their
island.

Mr. HARPER did not know that he could give an explanation of this
section which would be satisfactory to the gentleman from Virginia; but
he would state what was the intention of the bill, and what he thought
would be its effects. He conceived that the section now under
consideration is in strict conformity with the bill heretofore passed.
The object of that bill was twofold; first, to save our commerce from
that speculative and hazardous enterprise which the high profits made
by successful voyages enticed the merchant to go into, which was a
species of gambling by which some made large fortunes, and others
sustained heavy losses. This trade was something of the nature of
faro-banks, or lotteries, which all good Governments have thought proper
to prohibit. The Government of this country thought it wise to
interfere, and say to the merchants: "You shall not run these great
risks; for though a few of you make great gain by the trade, the loss
upon the whole is much greater than the gain." This was one object. The
other was, to deter the French nation, and those exercising authority
under it, from committing depredations upon our commerce, and thus
procure protection to our trade. By what means was this to be
accomplished? By withholding from the French those articles of prime
necessity which they were accustomed to receive through the medium of
commerce, to produce an effect which they should feel.

Let us examine, said Mr. H., whether this section is in conformity to
these two objects. There could be no doubt with respect to the first,
because if you can prevail upon those who heretofore encouraged
privateering, to forbear to make further depredations, our commerce will
unquestionably be rendered safe. The reason, therefore, for laying the
restriction, is thus removed; and he saw no reason why it should be
continued.

Mr. GALLATIN said, one of the objects of this bill when it passed at the
last session, was to prevent depredations upon our commerce; but a
majority of the House who voted for it, did so with a view of compelling
France, by the loss of our trade to her islands, to come to reasonable
terms of settlement with the United States. It was then said by some
gentlemen, that it was not improbable that the trade to the West Indies
was even more advantageous to the United States than to France, valuable
as it was to her; and that, therefore, it would not produce the effect
predicted. This was his opinion, and he therefore voted against the
bill. But, though he voted against this measure, and some others, which,
he thought at the time premature, yet a majority of Congress having, by
adopting them, placed the nation in its present situation, whatever his
opinion might then have been, and whatever it might now be, as to the
probability of an end being put to our differences with France, he
should think it bad policy, under present circumstances, to recede from
the ground then taken, since such a conduct could betray nothing but
weakness, and tend to defeat the object which all doubtless have in
view, whatever might be the different opinions of obtaining it, an
honorable peace. Though this law, therefore, was limited to the present
session, he was ready to vote for a continuance of it; but the section
now under consideration goes entirely upon new ground, and entirely
different to any either taken or avowed at the last session.

The law now in existence, said Mr. G., has a section something similar
to this, though widely different in substance. It is to this effect;
that if, before the next session of Congress, the Government of France,
and all persons under its authority, shall disavow and be found to
refrain from depredations upon our commerce, then it shall be lawful for
the PRESIDENT to suspend the operation of this law. Not to any part, but
with the whole. By that law, we said, "We are not yet at war with you,
we will adopt such measures as we think necessary for our present
situation. We will suspend commerce with you as a nation; but if you, as
a nation, shall disavow and refrain from depredations, we have given the
PRESIDENT power to renew our commercial intercourse with you."

But what, said Mr. G., is the language of this section? It is this. [He
read the section as above.] It is, that if any part of the nation, or
any commanding officer, or person claiming authority, in any one port,
or island, shall take those steps which we consider necessary for that
nation to take, it shall be lawful for the PRESIDENT to remit and
discontinue the restraints, prohibitions, &c. Instead of taking a
general national ground, it provides for the negotiation of an
individual, on his private account, who may either exercise, or claim to
exercise, authority in any island, &c.

We are not, said Mr. G., at war, and an act of this kind is an act
which, if it can be justified at all, can only be made use of in a state
of war. It is only in such a state that we are authorized to declare,
that we will act a different part with certain parts of a country at
war, from what we meant to act with the whole; that we will negotiate,
treat, make specific regulations with private individuals, provided they
shall do--what? Disavow what the French Republic does not disavow. The
present act makes it necessary for the disavowal to come from the
Government; but this section says, "that although the French Government
shall not disavow or restrain her depredations, &c., yet if an
individual shall do it, we will open a trade with this individual." This
would be to encourage insurrections. It is establishing a doctrine which
is reprobated almost every day on this floor--that it is right to divide
a people from their Government.

Mr. G. conceived, therefore, that the question comes to this: Is it
proper to give power to the PRESIDENT, under our present circumstances,
to stipulate with certain agents, that in case they will disobey their
Government, by declaring themselves independent, or by throwing
themselves into other hands, we will renew our commercial intercourse
with you? No man, said Mr. G., will deny that a trade of this kind would
be advantageous to the United States; he believed it to be one of the
most lucrative branches of our commerce; but it was nevertheless thought
proper, at the last session, to suspend it, in order, as then supposed,
to effect a greater good. Therefore, this commerce being advantageous
to the United States, is not a sufficient reason why this measure should
be taken, if it be wrong in itself, and may produce greater mischiefs
than the trade can do us good.

What, said Mr. G., are the inconveniences which would arise from a
measure of this kind? It must be allowed, in the first place, that it
would give the lie to all our former declarations of abhorrence against
the attempts of other countries to divide the people of a nation from
their Government; for we here, said he, assume the ground that it is
proper to negotiate and stipulate with a part of the people, with a
certain district of a country, with any person who shall choose to say
that he claims the right of governing in any place. We abandon the
general ground of treating with a foreign Government, and determine to
treat with any individual who may either have, or claim to have,
authority. Mr. G. believed a principle of this kind at all times
improper; and it would be peculiarly improper in us to act upon it, with
respect to a nation, against which we have so many grounds of complaint
of this kind. He had already stated, that it could only be justified in
a state of war, if then, to hold out encouragement to insurrection and
rebellion to the colonies of another country.

Mr. G. believed he might go so far as to say that this section was not
inserted to meet the case spoken of by the gentleman from Maryland; but
for the admission of one which had been a subject of discussion in the
newspapers for some time past. He meant what was generally understood by
the mission of Toussaint, a black General, of St. Domingo. It had been
asserted, from the moment of the arrival of a supposed agent, that he
came here with the late Consul of the United States at that port; that
he brought despatches from Toussaint to our Government. Further than
this, we have seen, in some of the newspapers printed at the eastward,
that this mission is likely to have some effect. We have seen it there
stated, "that the President is neither rash nor diffident, and that good
effects may be expected to flow from this mission." So far, on the
authority of the public newspapers, and none of these assertions have
been denied.

Should I be doing right, said Mr. G., to say that I believe that this
section of the bill is an effect of that negotiation? It is true I only
deduce this from probability, but the probability is strong. Mr. G. said
he knew that the independence of St. Domingo had been a favorite theme
with gentlemen, and they had made an appeal upon it to the avarice of
the people of the United States, that, in case of war, this independence
would be of advantage to the United States, and that, during a time of
peace, the minds of the people ought to be prepared for this event. But
gentlemen seem to think that the public mind is not yet ready for this
change, or they do not choose to avow the object of this mission. Which,
he could not tell; but he would advise those gentlemen who have
received information on this subject to communicate it. Mr. G. said he
should be happy to know the subject of the despatches of General
Toussaint. What is his offer to our Government? Whether his ideas go to
independence or not? Whether he is in any way connected with the British
Government, or not? Whether the sudden and extraordinary evacuation of
St. Domingo by General Maitland was to promote something of this kind,
or to support the force of General Toussaint? He should wish to know
what is the disposition of the Executive with respect to this business,
so far as it shall have come to the knowledge of any of these gentlemen.
He would also be glad to know the disposition of this agent, or the
nature of his object, at least so much of it as may have escaped at any
_petit soupér_ or _dinér_, at which these gentlemen may have been
parties? If any such information could be obtained, it might tend to
throw some light upon the subject. If he should be mistaken in his views
of it, it would be wholly owing to his being deprived of that
information, which he believed either the Executive, or some of the
members on this floor possess.

Mr. G. believed the object of this section is to give encouragement to
the black General in his present views. A single sentiment had dropped
from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS) in the course of the
debate, which had given rise to part of what he had said on this
subject, and which led him to believe that he had some information which
he ought to communicate. He said, "if St. Domingo should finally be
independent, it was proper to cultivate a good understanding with that
island at present, and not refuse"--what? "to hold out certain
encouragement to them in such an event." When? Now; so that we are not
only to cultivate a good understanding with St. Domingo, if it should
become independent, but in the expectation of it, and before it takes
place, it is proper to cultivate a good understanding with that island,
by holding out the encouragement proposed by this bill. This was nothing
less than to confess that this section is inserted in the bill to
encourage Toussaint to declare the island independent. Nay, his views,
if he is a man of sense, must go further; he must not only secure a
temporary trade, but he would also desire to know whether it be the wish
of this country that St. Domingo should become independent; because he
should suppose that if the Government of the United States was opposed
to such an event, a temporary trade would not be a sufficient inducement
to him to throw off his present allegiance.

To me, however, said Mr. G., if it be the intention of the General to
declare it, the independence of St. Domingo is a very problematical
event. It would certainly be the interest of Great Britain to oppose an
attempt of this kind; since it could not be her interest to have a black
Government there. But supposing the event possible, he should consider
it as extremely injurious to the interests of the United States. Suppose
that island, with its present population, under present circumstances,
should become an independent State. What is this population? It is known
to consist, almost altogether, of slaves just emancipated, of men who
received their first education under the lash of the whip, and who have
been initiated to liberty only by that series of rapine, pillage, and
massacre, that have laid waste and deluged that island in blood; of men,
who, if left to themselves, if altogether independent, are by no means
likely to apply themselves to the peaceable cultivation of the country,
but will try to continue to live, as heretofore, by plunder and
depredations. No man, said Mr. G., wishes more than I do to see an
abolition of slavery, when it can be properly effected; but no man would
be more unwilling than I to constitute a whole nation of freed slaves,
who had arrived to the age of thirty years, and thus to throw so many
wild tigers on society.[39] If the population of St. Domingo can remain
free in that island, he had no objection; but, however free, he did not
wish to have them independent, and he would rather see them under a
government that would be likely to keep them where they are, and prevent
them from committing depredations out of the island. But if they were
left to govern themselves, they might become more troublesome to us, in
our commerce to the West Indies, than the Algerines ever were in the
Mediterranean; they might also become dangerous neighbors to the
Southern States, and an asylum for renegadoes from those parts.

This being the case, Mr. G. said, he must deprecate every encouragement
which may be held out to produce such an event. Did not gentlemen
recollect what an alarm was sounded last year, with respect to the
probability of an invasion of the Southern States from the West Indies;
an alarm upon which some of the strongest measures of the last session
were grounded? Mr. G. could not help hoping, there would be a general
wish not to take any measure which may embody so dangerous a description
of men in our neighborhood, whose object may be plunder, and who might
visit the States of South Carolina and Georgia, and spread their views
among the negro people there, and excite dangerous insurrections among
them. He did not wish, therefore, to see this black population
independent; and that the interest will be wholly black is clear. The
General is black, and his agent here is married to a black woman in this
city. Mr. G. did not mean by this to throw any reflection upon the
General. He believed he had behaved well to Americans. His remarks were
general, and were only intended to show that it would be with a black
population we must treat.


WEDNESDAY, January 23.

Mr. S. SMITH said, that if he thought with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, that the clause under consideration was connected with the
mission from Toussaint, and the separation of Hispaniola from France, or
with an intention of dividing the people of that island from their
Government, he should also be opposed to it; but believing, as he did,
that it would be productive of none but good effects to this country, he
was in favor of retaining the clause.[40]

It might be well, Mr. S. said, to take a view of the relation which had
subsisted between France and her colonies for some years back. Early in
the Revolution, Santhonax and Polverel were sent as Commissioners to
Hispaniola, for the purpose of governing the island, and to carry into
effect the decree of the French Government for liberating the slaves.
They conducted themselves in a friendly manner towards America, but
destructively to the northern part of Hispaniola, and particularly
towards Cape Francois. The disastrous contest which took place between
the whites and blacks, to the destruction of the former, is well known.
From the abuse of their power, these Commissioners were recalled.
Polverel had not sufficient courage to appear before the French
Government, and put an end to his existence. Santhonax went to France,
and was sent out again to the island. Still he was favorable to this
country, until the decree of France declared that their vessels of war
should treat neutral vessels in the same manner as neutral powers
suffered Great Britain to treat them. Santhonax then issued his decree
of December, 1797, and American vessels were taken and carried into
Hispaniola indiscriminately, and unsuspectingly, not under the authority
of France, but under the authority of this agent. Not content with this
abuse of his power, Santhonax sent Deforneaux, the Commissioner of
Guadaloupe, to the south side of Hispaniola, to carry his plans into
effect there; but Rigaud, a man of color, and an honest man, who had
gained the esteem of the people, who was in power there, frustrated the
attempt. Deforneaux attempted to escape, but was taken and sent to
France. We see, therefore, that Santhonax made no scruple to set aside
the decrees of France; and in this manner has Rigaud ever done,
repealing and preventing the execution of the decrees of France,
whenever he disliked them. And was Rigaud punished by France for thus
exercising his power or not? No; he was made Commander-in-chief of the
south side of the island for having sent off Deforneaux. Hedouville
succeeded Santhonax in the Government, and brought with him the power
to execute or not, as he judged proper, the decree of the Directory
directing the capture of neutral vessels with British manufactures on
board. He determined that this decree should not be carried into effect
against vessels bound to Hispaniola. Did he carry his purpose into
effect? So far as his (Mr. S.'s) information went, he did.

Here, then, we see Hedouville setting aside the decrees of France; and
Rigaud has not only prevented American vessels from being condemned, but
has thrown the captains of privateers into prison for daring to bring in
American vessels, and has caused such as have been carried into
Jacquemel, on account of not having a _rôle d'equipage_, to be delivered
up immediately. Victor Hugues, upon the recall of Mr. Adet, ordered that
all vessels carrying on trade to what he called rebel ports, should be
brought in and made legal prizes of. This was another separate
authority. He afterwards issued orders for the condemnation of vessels
coming into Guadaloupe with a supercargo, who should either be an Irish
or a Scotchman, though they had every necessary paper on board to show
that they were bound to that port, and vessels were condemned for this
alone; and this is not seen in any of the decrees of France. Mr. S.
understood this clause as intended to meet cases of this kind; and, so
far from this being offensive to France, it must be quite the reverse.
Under this law, said Mr. S., the PRESIDENT will be enabled to say to
these special agents, "if you will suspend your decrees with respect to
your islands our trade shall be opened to you," and by this means give
to our citizens a commerce which is a mine of gold to them. Such a
conduct, he thought, must appear to every one perfectly reasonable.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania says that the independence of Hispaniola
would be dangerous to the Southern States. But does this bill, said Mr.
S., contemplate any such thing? Does it not say that the agents must be
under the Government of France? If the island were to declare itself
independent, we could not, said he, prevent our merchants from trading
with it; or if it should be in a state of rebellion, they would trade
with it at all risks, without coming under this act. This bill seems,
instead of encouraging the independence of the island, to place an
obstacle in the way of it. It promises to the commanding officer the
trade of this country, so long as he remains attached to France, and
forbears to depredate upon our commerce; but the moment he declares
himself independent, that promise is no longer binding.

Certain words in this clause are complained of; and Mr. S. owned he did
not like them himself. He meant the words, "shall clearly disavow;" and,
if this motion should not prevail, he would move to strike them out. He
should be satisfied if the islands refrained from depredating upon our
trade, without making any disavowal. Mr. S. said he could by no means
bring his mind to believe that this clause could give encouragement to
the people of Hispaniola to rebel against their country. Toussaint, said
he, is not the only Governor of that island. Rigaud, who, as he had
already stated, is a man of color and a man of excellent character, who
has great hold of the affections of the people, and whose attachments
are also strong to the French Government, has also a considerable share
of authority; and Toussaint, in his opinion, would not on this account
dare to declare the island independent.

But suppose, said Mr. S., this independence were to take place, would
all the danger to this country actually take place which has been
stated? In his opinion the reverse would be true. Refuse to these people
our commerce, and the provisions of which they stand in need, and you
compel them to become pirates and dangerous neighbors to the Southern
States; but, so long as you supply them, they will turn their attention
to the cultivation of their plantations. If, on the contrary, they once
get a taste for plunder, they will never settle to labor.

Mr. S. observed that it was the other day said that truth was the
characteristic of the Federal party. It might be so, though he had found
it otherwise; but the characteristics of party, he observed, always is
detraction, suspicion, and jealousy, whether it be called this or that.
On the present occasion he found jealousy and doubts had intruded on the
minds of gentlemen who would, at other times, see very differently. He
did not mean to throw any censure upon them on this account, because
they doubtless believe themselves right. This party spirit, said Mr. S.,
is every where to be found. The gentleman from Connecticut had the other
day said that he (Mr. S.) had constantly voted against every measure of
defence, yet if he would have read the journals, he would have found the
reverse the fact. [The Chairman doubted whether this was connected with
the question.][41] Mr. S. concluded by saying that the more gentlemen
think on the subject, the more they will be convinced the bill is not
pregnant with the mischiefs which they apprehend.

Mr. NICHOLAS said it would be difficult to ascertain precisely where
truth is to be found; whether in the extremes of party or in a middle
course. The gentleman from Maryland says party men are always in the
wrong; therefore he supposed that gentleman to be of opinion that those
who vibrate between two parties are always in the right. In considering
this question, he should do it according to his best judgment. If his
mind should be so operated upon by party spirit as not to see the truth,
it would be his misfortune.

He believed, as he had already stated, that this bill, as it now stands,
will authorize the PRESIDENT to negotiate with the subordinate agents
of a Government against the will of that Government, and thereby promote
a separation between the agent and his Government, by holding out a
temptation to do certain acts not warranted by the Government. The House
had been told, by two gentlemen from Massachusetts, that this cannot be
the operation of the law, because it has no relation to a revolted
colony; that when a revolt once takes place, the trade will open of
itself, as the territory will no longer be under the authority of
France. He wished to inquire into the truth of this doctrine, which one
gentleman has asserted and another has endeavored to prove. Mr. N. asked
if Toussaint should to-morrow declare himself independent, would the
PRESIDENT be authorized to direct the collector of the customs to
consider St. Domingo as no longer coming under the present law? In his
own opinion, he could not, because it would be contrary to the practice
of any other Government; and, if done, would give the lie to all the
professions made by us on subjects of this kind. When the separation
merely commences; when we know nothing of the means which the revolters
possess, but because some person chooses to declare a place independent,
shall our Government interfere and acknowledge such a place independent?
He asked whether any gentlemen in this House, who are so frequently
called disorganizers, had ever broached a doctrine like this? He knew
very well, without the authority of _Vattel_, which the gentleman from
Massachusetts had introduced, that any nation is at liberty to take part
in a rebellion; but it is a good cause of war. When a revolution is
effected, then the country revolting becomes independent, and any nation
may treat with it according to its will. But, if you take part with the
revolters, you place yourselves on the same ground with them in respect
to the Government revolted against. And, said he, in case we give any
assistance to any island belonging to France, in its revolt against that
Government, we place ourselves in a state of war.

Mr. N. believed gentlemen are wrong in their construction of the present
law, when they say if Toussaint were to declare himself independent
to-morrow, that the Executive might immediately consider him so, and
direct trade to be carried on with that island as heretofore. He
believed the PRESIDENT would not do it, and that the present clause of
this bill is founded upon the certainty that he would not. If this is
the case, the same objection is in full force against the wording of
this section. The gentleman from Massachusetts, first up, seems to
acknowledge that this law is to have this operation. He, says, St.
Domingo may become independent, and that therefore it is highly proper
we should let them know what dependence they may have upon us; to let
them know that they may expect all the advantages of independence. Is
not this, said Mr. N., an acknowledgment of the effect which this law
will have? That the moment they throw off the French yoke, they will
receive all the assistance from this country which a free commerce can
give them? Mr. N. thought the gentleman himself inflicted the deepest
wound on this bill, for gentlemen cannot say that such an assurance is
not a temptation to commit the act.

Mr. N. could readily believe that the trade of St. Domingo is very
valuable to this country, and the assertion of the gentleman from
Maryland, that it is a "mine of gold," had confirmed that opinion; and
he was really afraid that that gentleman's representing a commercial
part of the country, and being himself deeply engaged in commerce, the
importance of this trade may have too much weight in deciding a question
of this kind, and be a means of disregarding the evils which may arise
from it; but Mr. N. was of opinion, that a solid peace would be far more
beneficial to commerce generally, than any temporary advantage of this
kind. Besides, the principle upon which such advantages would be built,
is something similar to that which would actuate a man to fall upon the
property of his neighbor, because he is richer than himself.

But does not the same gentleman tell the House that the powers in St.
Domingo are pretty equally balanced between General Toussaint and
Rigaud, and that, therefore, if Toussaint attempted to establish the
independence of the island, there could be no certainty of his success?
Why, then, said Mr. N., should we go into a measure which might produce
war between the two countries, when the advantage to be derived from it
is so very doubtful? And he thought the danger from the proceeding was
heightened by the circumstance which gentlemen have mentioned of there
being so very large a body of people in arms there; for, since the
powers are so nicely balanced, is it not probable that the government
party, in case of a struggle, would have the advantage? And would it not
be the height of madness for us to run the risk of having the large
force of that island turned against us, in consequence of our improper
interference between the colony and its government?

Mr. N. said, he could not overlook some considerations connected with
this subject, which he thought of great importance. It is well known,
(and he begged gentlemen who have the same desire to preserve the
country in peace that he had, to pause at the suggestion,) that there
are many gentlemen in this House who have been long in favor of coming
to an open declaration of war against France; and he had every reason to
believe that the same disposition yet exists in these gentlemen; but the
same opportunity of making this declaration does not now exist. The
public mind is not now so well prepared for entering upon a war as it
was some time ago, because they believe things wear a better appearance.
If then, said Mr. N., the same disposition exists for war; if these
gentlemen think they or their country will be benefited by war, they
may be very willing that France should declare it; and if it be possible
that a wish of this sort may exist, it affords a full solution to the
meaning of this bill.

But we are told, said Mr. N., that we ought not to excite the animosity
of the people of St. Domingo. Is our present situation calculated to
produce this effect? Certainly not, since they are necessarily involved
with the mother country; and to take the part proposed, he had already
shown might be attended with the most direful consequences. He thought
this country ought not to wish for the independence of St. Domingo in
another point of view. However we may wish to see the naval power of
France put down, so that they may not have it in their power, if they
have the wish, to invade this country, it is highly important to us that
the naval power of Europe should be divided. He did not think that it
could be for the interest of this country that Great Britain should have
a navy which should keep the world in awe, and subject it to her views;
and if we assist in destroying the colonies of France, we shall be the
means of throwing them and their naval power into the hands of Great
Britain. He did not know that it mattered much to us whether St. Domingo
was a colony of France or England, only as it would add to the naval
strength of England. He hoped, therefore, the motion for striking out
would prevail.

Mr. PINCKNEY observed, that so much had already been said on this
subject, and the general principles of the bill had been so ably
defended, that it would be unnecessary to make more than one or two
remarks in reply to the gentleman from Virginia. That gentleman had gone
altogether upon the idea of this bill being of so obnoxious a nature to
the Government of France, that it must be considered by that government
as a cause of war. He thought it had already been shown, that the
gentleman was altogether mistaken; and, very unhappily for his position,
our own experience was sufficient to determine whether it has ever been
considered as a cause of war for neutral countries to trade with
colonies revolting from a mother country. We know, said he, very well
how neutral nations conducted towards us in our revolt from the
Government of Great Britain. Mr. P. believed it was never understood
that any nation with whom we traded was, in consequence, involved in war
with Great Britain. The fact was otherwise. It was never so looked upon
by that country, and gentlemen will admit that that Government was at
least hightoned enough. All that Great Britain did was to seize the
vessels whenever she could lay hold of them; and this is the risk which
the gentleman from Maryland mentioned our traders would run in carrying
commerce into any place in a state of revolution. It is well known that
we endeavored, during the whole course of our war, to draw foreign
commerce to this country, which was found necessary in order to enable
us to carry on the war. Agents were employed for this purpose, and we
saw no moral turpitude in this. And during the time that Holland was
separated from the dominion of Spain, was war declared in consequence of
any nation trading with Holland? The case was so different, he
recollected that Holland declared, that she would seize all vessels
going to Spain, though that had heretofore been considered as the mother
country. This was reversing the case.

With respect to the three points stated generally by the Secretary of
State, they are not said to go to the point for which the gentleman from
Virginia has taken them. With regard to the _douceur_ of £50,000, Mr. P.
would say, that if we believe this attempt to have been made to extort
this sum of money from our Envoys, for corrupt purposes, (and
notwithstanding all that has been said on the subject, he did believe
that X and Y were the agents of the French Government in that
transaction, and which has, indeed, been acknowledged by Y, Mr. Bellamy,
of Hamburg, who declares he has never written or said any thing to our
Envoys, but by the direction of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs,) no
reliance ought to be placed upon any of their declarations; for after
such an act, it may be supposed they will say one thing at one time and
another at another; and no reliance could be had upon any thing which
comes from so corrupt a source.

Mr. P. said he would not trouble the committee longer, except in one
point, and that was as to the consequences which might flow from a
declaration of independence on the part of St. Domingo. He should
endeavor to answer the gentleman from Pennsylvania as to the
consequences which it might produce to the Southern States. It was a
subject to which he had paid all the attention in his power. He did, on
all questions, endeavor as much as possible to divest himself of any
thing like party spirit; but in this case, where he had himself so much
at stake, in which his native country and every thing dear to him was
concerned, his sincerity could not be doubted. Mr. P. did not himself
believe that this bill would have the least tendency to procure the
independence of St. Domingo; but as some gentlemen think it is probable
that this may be the result, and as no one could say with certainty what
the effect of any measure would be, he had considered the subject, and
was clearly of opinion, that should the independence of that island take
place, the event would be more advantageous to the Southern States, than
if it remained under the dominion of France, considering the disposition
which France has evinced towards us, (and of which he saw no prospects
of a change,) and the present conduct of the inhabitants of St. Domingo.
Nothing which we can do, said Mr. P., can bring back the internal state
of that island to the state it was formerly in. Considering the
inhabitants, then, in the light of freemen, whether will it be better
for us, in the Southern States, to have to deal with them, as such, or
under the direction of the French Government, unreasonable and
arbitrary as we have found it? He had no hesitation in saying, that, it
would be more for the safety of the Southern States, to have that island
independent, than under the Government of France, either in time of
peace or war. If our dispute with France should not be accommodated, and
they keep possession of St. Domingo, they could invade this country only
from that quarter. There is there a large body of troops, and their
unofficial agents told our Envoys, that in case we did not submit to
their conditions, we might expect an attack from that quarter. It would
certainly lessen the danger from that island, were it to be separated
from France; but remaining in the hands of France, and supported by the
powerful navy of France, notwithstanding all the vigor we have shown on
the ocean, we might be very much annoyed from thence.

If these people in St. Domingo find that we withhold from them supplies
which are necessary for their subsistence, said Mr. P., though they are
friendly disposed towards us, they will look elsewhere for support; they
must either turn their attention to cultivating their land, look to
Great Britain, or become freebooters. Which situation is it most for the
interest of the United States that they should be in? Surely the
peaceful cultivation of the ground; and to induce them to take this
course, it will be our interest to supply them with what they have
occasion for, lest they should get the habit of freebooters, and make
our commerce the object of their plunder. He hoped, therefore, the
motion for striking out would not prevail.

Mr. MACON had no doubt the gentleman from South Carolina had paid
particular attention to this subject. It was to be expected that every
gentleman from the Southern States would pay attention to it. In one
respect, he was precisely in the same situation with the gentleman from
South Carolina. He lived in a country that would be affected by any
event, such as had been mentioned, and all his connections were there.
It was the same with all other gentlemen from the Southern States. He
differed in opinion, however, when the gentlemen said that we should
have less to apprehend from St. Domingo, in case it should become
independent, than whilst it remained a part of the French Republic. He
believed the state of society to be such in that country, as not to
admit of self-government. In case they separate from France, he should
apprehend that the consequence will be, that instead of being ruled by
one of the European powers, they would become the tools of them all, in
turn, and we should probably have the same game played off upon us from
thence, that we have heretofore had played upon us by means of the
Indians.

Mr. M. said, that although the part of the bill moved to be stricken
out, does not go directly to say that it has reference to St. Domingo,
it is a little extraordinary that no other case will fit it. There could
be no doubt, if the island became independent, we should have a right to
trade to it; but he believed it would puzzle gentlemen to find an
instance of a Legislature passing a law in order to fit a case which
might happen. As he thought it improper, he hoped it would be stricken
out.

Mr. GOODRICH said this amendment went to change the principle of the
bill. The bill goes upon the idea that when any island in the West
Indies shall cease to make depredations upon our commerce, our trade
shall be opened with them, without regarding by what authority or force
the change was effected. The matter is not placed upon the ground of any
treaty whatever; for, said Mr. G., we can neither increase nor diminish
the power of the PRESIDENT in this respect. A great deal of mist has
been thrown on this subject. The effect of this amendment will be, that
the person restraining from depredations upon our commerce must act
under the authority of the French Republic; on the contrary, the friends
of this bill wish not to examine by what authority the thing is done,
provided that it be done. We have a right to say that our vessels shall
go to any port we please; but, according to the doctrine of the
amendment supposing the island of St. Domingo was conquered, we could
not send our commerce there, nor could we send it to a place in
rebellion; so that our commerce was to be affected by every change of
circumstances which might take place. He hoped the committee would
recognize no principle which shall say we have not a right to send our
commerce wherever we please, whether the places to which our vessels go
are in war, peace, or rebellion.

Mr. GALLATIN was astonished to hear the gentleman from Connecticut say
that this is merely a commercial question. Let us, said he, examine the
effect of this amendment. We are told that the provisions of this bill
do not extend to any colony which may be conquered; for instance, to St.
Martin's, St. Lucia, or any other colonies which have been conquered.
Let us see, then, how it will apply if this amendment is rejected, and
whether the question is commercial or political. Let us inquire, said
he, what is the case provided for, if the amendment is rejected, and
which is unprovided for if it is adopted, and it will then appear what
ground is covered by the opposers of this amendment. If rejected, it
will result, that all persons who may claim or exercise any command in
any island, &c., although they have not that command under the
Government of France, and who shall refrain from privateering, shall be
entitled to a free trade with this country. The only case is a case of
insurrection and rebellion. Suppose, said Mr. G., I should agree with
the gentleman from Connecticut, that if once a rebellion takes place, or
any colony shall declare itself independent, (but, by the by, the
doctrine is not countenanced by the law of nations,) that we may trade
there as we please. Does it result that we have a right to pass a law
beforehand to contemplate such an event? If we do, it will be speaking
publicly, thus: "If any persons shall, in any island, port, or place,
belonging to the French Republic, raise an insurrection, and declare
themselves independent, and shall be found to refrain from committing
depredations upon our commerce, we will open a free trade with them."
And yet the gentleman from Connecticut calls this a mere commercial
question.

The committee have been told of a number of cases which he had been
astonished to hear--cases which happened in our war. Gentlemen who have
mentioned these have not attended to any of the facts of the war. Mr. G.
referred to the case of the treaty made in Holland, which has already
been explained in a former debate. Mr. G. said, gentlemen might put what
construction they pleased upon this section; but certainly publicly to
tell the French colonies that if they will rebel against their
Government, and restrain from depredating upon us, we will treat with
them, is to invite them to do it. A declaration of war has always been
the consequence of such a conduct in other countries; and he supposed
gentlemen are not ready for a declaration of war, though they tell us
there is no change in our affairs for the better; that negotiation is at
an end; that no idea can be entertained of the sincerity of any
professions of the French; and not being ready to bring in a declaration
of war, they are not surely ready to make it, or provoke it; and if not,
why assume a principle that may have this effect? He hoped the amendment
would be agreed to.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.


THURSDAY, January 24.

_Death of Mr. Tazewell._

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that HENRY
TAZEWELL, Esq., one of their body, died this morning, and that they had
directed orders to be taken respecting his funeral.

Afterwards, on motion of Mr. DENT, the House came to the following
resolution:

_Resolved_, That this House will attend the funeral of HENRY TAZEWELL,
Esq., late a member of the Senate of the United States, on to-morrow, at
half past four o'clock.[42]


_Intercourse with France._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
bill further to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United
States and France, and the dependencies thereof, and for other purposes.

Mr. SPAIGHT'S amendment being under consideration,

Mr. HARTLEY said the general policy of this bill had been considered at
the last session; and he had no doubt, that when any parts of the
French dominions cease to depredate upon our commerce, we might, with
propriety, open our intercourse with them. If, for instance, the Isle of
France had fitted out privateers, and depredated upon our commerce, and
chose to forbear to do so in future, and leave our passage to the Indian
seas clear, it would be a good reason for opening our commerce with that
place. The case of St. Domingo is still stronger, and has, as has been
shown, the power of doing as much mischief, should we refuse to furnish
them with the necessary supplies. If they call in their privateers,
therefore, it would certainly be right to open our intercourse with that
valuable island, especially since they appear to be abandoned by France,
who has withdrawn all her troops from the island.

After some other observations, Mr. H. concluded with hoping the
amendment would not be agreed to, as it would only tend to embarrass the
bill, by making it necessary to ascertain the legality of the governing
authority of the places with which we might open our intercourse.

Mr. BRACE was opposed to this amendment, as it came round to the same
point with that which the gentleman from Pennsylvania had proposed. It
struck him that, in the course of the debate, gentlemen have forgot the
ground on which we stand. Our treaties with the French Government have
been declared void, on account of the conduct of that Government. We
have proceeded further, and suspended all commercial intercourse with
France and her dependencies. It would be well to consider what kind of
connection now exists between the United States and France, and whether
a measure of the kind proposed can injure our present prospect of peace.
By the arguments of some gentlemen it would seem that we are under some
obligation or contract to that Government; whereas, we ought to consider
ourselves, with respect to it, in no other light than we consider
ourselves with respect to the governments of the world with which we
have no connection. We have, therefore, no object to pursue, but what,
in a dignified national view, it is our duty and our interest to pursue.

This separation having been effected by the wrong acts of the French
Government, she can have no claim upon us; we have taken our stand upon
such ground as can always be justified, whenever a spirit of justice
shall return. There is no man, said Mr. B., in the House, who does not
wish for peace, whenever it can be obtained on a solid foundation. But
it was well observed yesterday by his colleague, (Mr. GOODRICH,) that
this question is wholly a commercial one. This declaration gave offence
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He was surprised that any one could
suppose this to be the case. Mr. B. said he was equally surprised at the
arguments of that gentleman. What connection had we with the French
Government? or what connection had we with, any other, besides
commercial? He had heard much clamor out of doors about other
connections--about treaties offensive and defensive. He hoped no such
connexion ever would exist between this country and any nation whatever.

Mr. SPAIGHT said, he wished to have given the reasons which induced him
to make this amendment yesterday, but a motion being made for the
committee to rise, prevented him. Having been a member of the committee
who formed this bill, and having given his consent to it, he trusted it
would not be believed that he brought forward this motion to defeat the
bill; his object was to make it more palatable to many gentlemen, who,
if an amendment something like the present was not adopted, would vote
against the bill. The gentlemen from Massachusetts and Connecticut have
said, that if this amendment is adopted, it will destroy some of the
most important principles of the bill. He believed they had mistaken the
effect of the amendment. They state that it will be necessary for the
PRESIDENT to inquire whether the commander of any island with which he
was about to open our intercourse, had his authority from the French
Government? On the contrary, it appeared to Mr. S. that, so long as the
citizens of any island acknowledged France as the mother country,
whatever authority may exist there, the place must be under the
Government of France. If an open rebellion took place, it would alter
the case entirely. And if conquered by any of the belligerent powers, it
would not then come under the bill; so that, in either case, the
amendment could have no bad effect. The principal motive with him for
moving the amendment was, in order to take away the objection made to it
by many gentlemen, that the bill is calculated to produce the
independence of St. Domingo; for he himself had no such view, nor did he
think any other member of the committee, who reported the bill, had. He
believed, if the wants of these people are supplied from this country,
it will be better that they should remain under the Government of
France; but, if we refuse to supply them with provisions, they may act
as freebooters, or do still worse--throw themselves into the hands of
Great Britain, in order to procure supplies. These reasons had induced
him to make the amendment, and he should be glad to see it adopted.

Mr. CHAMPLIN could see no difference between this and the former
amendment, which had been negatived. The design of this section is, to
authorize the PRESIDENT to open the intercourse with any of the islands
and the United States, whenever he shall deem it consistent with the
honor and dignity of this country, without inquiring whether such place
is under the French Government. Frequent decrees are passed in France,
said Mr. C., for revoking the commissions of these officers, which are
not enforced; and yet, if this amendment is passed, such a person could
not be treated with, and it would always be difficult to ascertain
whether an officer acted under the French Government or not. If the
islands choose to cease from their depredations, he would openly trade
with them; for the intercourse was originally suspended, not with a view
of starving the islands, but to prevent depredations being committed
upon our commerce. He was astonished to find that nothing could come
before this House, but gentlemen are ready to object to it on account of
the effect it may have on France. For his part, if the measure be
beneficial to this country, he cared not what effect it might have upon
France. It was said this provision would have a tendency to provoke
insurrection, or the independence of the island; on the contrary, he
believed, if this law does not pass, they will throw themselves into the
hands of Great Britain, or become plunderers of our property. He hoped
to see the intercourse opened, not only with St. Domingo, but with the
Isle of France.

Mr. HARPER said, when this amendment was first made, he considered it as
making no considerable change in the section, and was, therefore,
inclined to vote for it; but the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.
VARNUM,) of whose discernment he had a very high opinion, having said
that he considered it as making a very considerable change in the
section, and declaring that he would, on that account, vote for it, he
was induced to take a further view of it, and he found, upon
reconsideration, that it would, indeed, make a very material change in
the section, and because he found this would be the case, he must vote
against it.

Mr. GALLATIN said, it appeared to him that this amendment goes no
further than to prevent any stipulations with persons who have usurped
the power of a country. It was yesterday stated by the gentleman from
Massachusetts, and repeated to-day by the gentleman from North Carolina,
that it did not extend to cases where men's commissions are doubtful. If
a man has once held a commission as an agent in any French colony, he
may be recognized as their agent, so long as he has not been publicly
declared to be otherwise. His exercising the power will be sufficient
proof that he has it; and, unless this principle is admitted, it must be
evident that the bill is intended to operate in favor of revolters.

There is a great difference, said Mr. G., between this amendment and the
one which had been moved by the gentleman from Virginia, the gentleman
from New York, or that which he had himself moved. It was the opinion of
the gentleman from Virginia, and it was his also, that the PRESIDENT
ought not to be authorized to open a trade with St. Domingo, unless the
constituted authorities of France had disavowed their former
aggressions, and refrained from them; they did not think it right to
permit a trade with particular parts of the possessions of France,
considering that the measure was originally taken to distress the French
Government, and bring it to terms; but this section gives the power of
opening a partial intercourse with St. Domingo, though the Government
of France should not disavow any of her former illegal acts; and the
present amendment only proposes to except cases of insurgency. Nor could
he see what possible objection can be made to it, except that it will
prevent a lure from being held out to promote the independence of St.
Domingo; for in nothing else does the amendment differ from the bill as
it now stands.

If we are to hold out this lure, said Mr. G., it must be because we have
the right, and it is our interest to do it. When he asserted we have not
the right to do it, he would remark upon the word "right." Gentlemen say
we have a right to do this, because we are an independent nation. No
doubt. But when he said we have not a right to do it, he meant that we
could not do it without infracting the law of nations, or those rules
which we have declared ought to govern every nation. And though the
gentleman from Connecticut has said that there is no connection of a
political nature between us and France, and therefore considers this as
merely a commercial regulation, Mr. G. said, he has mistaken his
meaning, by making use of the word "connection" instead of _relation_.
We have no connection, either commercial or political, with France; but
we stand, as a nation, in a political and commercial relation with
France and other nations. There is no connection between us, but there
is the same relation, both political and commercial, that there is
between all other nations. And, said Mr. G., it is, doubtless, an
infraction on the law of nations to offer any lure, or promote the
independence of a colony. We certainly have a right to give assistance,
in case of a rebellion, by running the risk of becoming a party in the
war, but not without infracting the law of nations; still less could we
do it without breaking that morality in politics, the breach of which we
have so often complained of. We may suppose the Government of France
radically wrong, and the people exercising it corrupt, but neither would
justify the overturning, or holding out any encouragement to others to
overturn, the Government of any part of her dependencies. A conduct of
this kind could only be justified in time of war.

In this country, in our speeches, at least, we have gone further, and
said that, even in case of war, it would not be right to sow the seeds
of insurrection; for, on what other grounds could we account for the
philippics which have been pronounced on this floor against France, for
her conduct not only against countries with whom she was at peace, but
also against those with whom she was at war. This was the case with
respect to all the charges made against France with respect to Holland,
or the Milanese (now Cisalpine Republic) with whom she was at war when
the attempts condemned were made. But we have said, war is at best an
unfortunate state, and it is not right to heighten its evils by exciting
insurrections and commotions. If this principle is right, and Mr. G.
believed it correct in most cases, it is clear that we shall not be
justified in promoting insurrections, even in war, much less in this
state which is a state of hostility, but not of war.

Notwithstanding the respect which he paid to the opinion of the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. PINCKNEY) he could not be persuaded
that the independence of St. Domingo could be a desirable object.
To-day, it had been avowed, in what fell from his colleague, (Mr.
HARTLEY,) that this was the ground upon which the clause was founded,
all the French force being withdrawn. He gave credit to the candor of
his colleague for the declaration, and it was in this point of view
which he had always considered it, because he had stated that, no doubt,
an agent from that quarter had come with propositions to our government.

Mr. G. repeated some of his former reasons against the policy of
promoting the independence of St. Domingo. He heard the gentleman from
Rhode Island, with regret, repeat one of those illiberal ideas that had
been so frequently introduced here, by saying that gentlemen seemed
opposed to this measure, because it would be injurious to France.

Mr. PINCKNEY wished to make a single observation upon what fell from the
gentleman from Pennsylvania. In order to defeat all that has been said
about this section holding out a lure for the establishment of the
independence of St. Domingo, it need only be said, that it is confined
to the colonies which are under the jurisdiction of France. The language
of this clause is, "so long as you continue dependent, we will treat
with you."

Mr. NICHOLAS explained.

Mr. SPRAGUE observed that the gentleman from Pennsylvania insisted upon
it, that, without this amendment, this bill would hold out a lure to
insurrections in St. Domingo, and that if gentlemen did not wish to
encourage these, they must agree to the amendment. What is this
encouragement? It is, "if you will forbear committing depredations,
which we have heretofore experienced from you, we will open our trade
with you." Then, according to the gentleman's reasoning, acts of
hostility against the commerce of this country, are favorable to France;
or rather, ceasing to commit them is an act of rebellion against the
mother country; and, to hold out a lure on our part, to stop these
depredations, is so contrary to the views of France, as to give a high
offence to that country.

Mr. MCDOWELL remarked, that gentlemen opposed to this amendment, all
agree that the section, as it stands, holds out no lure to insurrection
in the French West India islands; if not, why should they object to this
amendment, which is only calculated to make certain what is at present
doubtful to some members. He wished gentlemen to consider what might be
the consequence of authorizing the PRESIDENT to treat with unauthorized
persons. Gentlemen have stated, and he supposed truly, that the trade
of this island of St. Domingo is a gold mine to the merchants of this
country; and he was afraid that the richness of this trade had too much
attraction to be resisted by those concerned in it, though it might be
dearly purchased by the nation at large. He differed widely in opinion
from the gentleman from South Carolina, with respect to the effect which
the independence of that island would have upon this country; he
believed it was by no means a desirable event to this country.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS did not intend to have said any thing on this subject,
as it is principally a commercial concern, of which he knew but little;
but he also conceived that the agricultural interest is connected with
it. Gentlemen are afraid more is meant by this bill than meets the eye;
they are afraid to take a worm or a fly, lest a hook should be concealed
in them. Instead of war, he thought this bill calculated to promote
peace. It is admitted, on all hands, said Mr. W., that Hispaniola cannot
support itself. How must they, then, get support? Either we must supply
them, or they must depend upon neutral islands, or the people must bend
their whole force upon our commerce. What, said he, is most prudent to
do? He thought the regulation proposed by this bill the best that could
be hit upon. But the gentleman from Virginia said we are obliged to send
our tobacco through Spain to France; is this, said he, an advantage to
the people of this country? It may be presumed, Mr. W. said, that the
President will go no further in this business than the interest of the
country requires. This jealousy of the PRESIDENT has a bad effect;
because from a want of confidence in this officer, he will be unable to
do any thing for us. He hoped the amendment would not be agreed to.

It was negatived--49 to 41.


MONDAY, January 28.

_Intercourse with France._

The bill further suspending our commercial intercourse with France and
her dependencies, and for other purposes, having been read the third
time,

Mr. ALLEN moved for a recommitment of the bill in order to have expunged
a proviso introduced by the member from Tennessee, excluding the port of
New Orleans from its operation. He stated his reason to be, that he did
not believe that was likely to be a rendezvous for French privateers;
but that, if it should be, it ought to be liable to the same
restrictions with other ports; and, if it was not likely to become a
harbor of privateers, to insert a proviso of this kind, was to show a
distrust that the PRESIDENT would not exercise the power given to him
for the interest of the United States.

This motion was seconded by Mr. OTIS, and opposed by Messrs. VENABLE,
NICHOLAS, S. SMITH, W. CLAIBORNE, and HARPER. It was negatived, the
yeas and nays being taken--74 to 18.

The question on the passing of the bill was then taken, and stood, yeas
55, nays 37, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jun., Bailey Bartlett,
      James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Stephen
      Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James
      Cochran, William Craik, John Dennis, George Dent, William
      Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan
      Freeman, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Henry Glenn, Chauncey
      Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert
      Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah
      L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel
      Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Daniel Morgan,
      Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, Thomas
      Pinckney, John Reed, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman,
      Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel
      Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Peleg Sprague, George
      Thatcher, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van
      Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, John Williams, and
      Robert Williams.

      NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thos. Blount, Richard
      Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne,
      William C. C. Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas
      T. Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph,
      William Findlay, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew
      Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N.
      Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward
      Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Anthony New,
      John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, William Smith, Richard
      Sprigg, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Joseph B. Varnum, and Abraham Venable.


_French Affairs._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives:_

      An edict of the Executive Directory of the French Republic
      of the twenty-ninth of October, 1798, inclosed in a letter
      from our Minister Plenipotentiary in London, of the
      sixteenth of November, is of so much importance that it
      cannot be too soon communicated to you and to the public.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      _January 28, 1799._

      _Extract of a letter from Rufus King, Esq., Minister
      Plenipotentiary of the United States at London, to the
      Secretary of State, dated November 16, 1798._

      "The annexed arrêt would appear extravagant and incredible,
      if it proceeded from any other authority; but mankind is so
      accustomed to the violence and injustice of France, that we
      almost cease to express our surprise and indignation at the
      new instances that she continues to display."


[TRANSLATION.]

      _Decree of the Executive Directory, of October 29, 1798._

      The Executive Directory, upon the report of the Minister of
      Foreign Relations, considering that the fleets, privateers,
      and ships, of England and Russia, are in part equipped by
      foreigners.

      Considering that this violation is a manifest abuse of the
      rights of nations, and that the powers of Europe have not
      taken any measures to prohibit it. Decrees:

      1st. Every individual, native (_ou originaire_) of friendly
      countries, allied to the French Republic, or neutral,
      bearing a commission, granted by the enemies of France, or
      making part of the crews of ships of war, and others,
      enemies, shall be by this single fact declared a pirate,
      and treated as such, without being permitted in any case to
      allege that he had been forced into such service by
      violence, threats, or otherwise.

      2d. The Executive Directories of the Batavian, Lagurian,
      Cisalpine, and Roman Republics, shall be instructed to this
      effect.

      3d. The provisions contained in the first article shall be
      notified to those powers which are neutral or allied to the
      French Republic.

      4th. The Ministers of Exterior Relations is charged with
      the execution of the present arrêt which shall be printed
      in the Bulletin of the Laws.

                          (Signed)
                          TERILHARD, _President_.

The message and documents were read, and ordered to lie on the table.


TUESDAY, January 29.

THOMAS SUMTER, from South Carolina, appeared and took his seat in the
House.


FRIDAY, February 1.

JOHN FOWLER, from Kentucky, appeared and took his seat in the House.


_Remonstrance of Georgia._

On motion of Mr. BALDWIN, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole on the report of a select committee on the petition and
remonstrance of the Legislature of Georgia; and the resolution reported
by that committee being under consideration, its adoption was opposed
principally by Mr. ALLEN.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought the following resolution would be less
exceptionable than the one reported, and it was agreed to--55 votes
being in its favor.

      "_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law for
      complying with such treaty as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
      STATES may think proper to make with the Creek Indians, and
      for obtaining possession, in behalf of the State of
      Georgia, of the lands lying within the country of
      Tallassee, or other lands on the frontier of the said
      State, which may be deemed equivalent thereto, and that
      ---- dollars be appropriated therefor."

The committee rose, and after some further remarks from Mr. ALLEN, the
resolution was concurred in--59 votes being in its favor. It was then
referred to the select committee to report a bill.

The House adjourned to Monday.


THURSDAY, February 7.

_Augmentation of the Navy._

On motion of Mr. JOSIAH PARKER, the House resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the bill for the augmentation of the Navy,
and fixing the pay of the captains of ships or vessels of war; when the
first section being under consideration--

Mr. GALLATIN moved to strike out the words "six ships of war, of a size
to carry, and which shall be armed with not less than seventy-four guns
each; and these shall be built or purchased within the United States;"
in order to take the sense of the committee on the propriety of
building, at present, ships-of-the-line. When this subject was last year
before the House, the general opinion was, that during the present war,
considering the crippled state of the French navy, frigates and vessels
of a smaller size, were sufficient to protect our vessels on our own
coast, and in the West India seas; nor did that opinion seem to have
undergone any material alteration; for, although the Secretary of the
Navy, and the select committee, had reported that the expense of
building the six seventy-four gun ships now proposed, would amount to
$2,400,000, yet the appropriation asked for the present year was only
one million of dollars. It was not expected that much more than
one-third of the work necessary to send those ships to sea, could be
executed during the present year. It was not expected that they could be
finished in less than two or three years. They were not wanted for any
immediate purpose. The proposed measure was not therefore a measure of
defence. It was a project of a general nature. The question is, whether
it be proper, at the present time, to lay the foundation of a navy, of a
fleet, that might be able, hereafter, to give us a certain weight in
relation to European nations; which might be able to cope with the
fleets of those nations: and it was in order to bring that question
fairly before the Committee of the Whole that he had made his motion.
Should that motion prevail, it would not affect the building of the six
sloops of war which were said to be immediately wanted, in addition to
our present naval force, for the purpose of protecting our commerce. It
would merely prevent the building, at present, of a fleet which was
supposed, by the friends of the bill, to be wanted only for future
purposes.

This led him naturally to consider the expense of that navy. It is
stated by the Secretary of the Navy, that the annual expense of a 74-gun
ship will exceed 216,000 dollars, and that therefore the annual expense
of six of these ships will be about 1,300,000 dollars. That the building
and equipping a 74-gun ship, exclusive of military stores, will be
342,700 dollars; and that the military stores will cost 48,000 dollars;
so that the first building and equipping six of these vessels will cost
about 2,400,000 dollars. This is the first expense, but nothing is said
of the yearly repairing and building which will be necessary to keep up
a fleet of this kind. It is estimated, in the navies of Europe, that a
ship-of-the-line will last from 12 to 15 years; so that, besides
ordinary repairs, the whole expense of building would have to be
renewed every 12 or 15 years.[43] It would have been desirable, and it
might have been expected, that the select committee should have laid
before the House an estimate of the peace establishment of a navy to the
extent proposed, in order to have enabled the House to have formed a
just opinion on the main question. This they have not done; but
supposing the other estimates to be perfectly correct; supposing that
the expense would not overrun the calculations laid before the House,
and, if so, it would be the first time it had not done it; supposing,
according to those calculations, that a 74-gun ship will hereafter cost
us less than two-thirds of what 44-gun frigates have heretofore cost us;
it results, that the first necessary expense (including $150,000 for
docks and timber) will exceed, for six ships only, two millions and a
half of dollars; and that the annual expense of supporting them, when in
commission, exclusively of annual repairs, and of building new ships,
necessary to supply those that from time to time will become unfit for
service, will amount to 1,300,000 dollars.

If these premises are true, and he knew they could not be contradicted,
the conclusion must be most forcible that it is improper at present to
build a navy, especially since there is no immediate demand for it. But
if once the foundation of a large navy is laid, no one can say where it
will stop. The Secretary of the Navy does not suppose that six 74-gun
ships will be sufficient. He supposes twelve necessary; six are now
proposed merely as an entering wedge. And when once twelve
ships-of-the-line are obtained, if our commerce and coast, extensive as
they are, must be effectually protected, these will not be deemed
sufficient. He drew this conclusion from the naval force of European
nations. Our tonnage exceeds that of any European nation, except Great
Britain and Holland; and if we must have a navy to protect our commerce,
it must bear some proportion to the extent of our coast, to the amount
of our tonnage, and to the navies of the European nations. And upon what
terms are we to cope with the powers of Europe with respect to any navy?
It would be recollected that when last year there was a mutiny on board
the British fleet, in order to put an end to it, the sailors' wages were
advanced to one shilling sterling per day, equal to thirty shillings
sterling, or six dollars and two-thirds per month, whilst we give our
seamen seventeen dollars a month, so that we pay nearly three times as
much for men to supply our navy, as England does.

Mr. G said, he would not detain the committee longer at present, though
he meant to have made some observations with respect to the expense of
navies to those nations who support them in order to show that the
expense of them far exceeds the benefits derived from them. If reference
were had to European nations, it would be found, Mr. G. said, that
navies were used more as engines of power, than as a protection to
commerce. Even with respect to Great Britain, which is the only nation
which has succeeded in effecting any material object by a navy, though
she has obtained a preponderancy at sea, and has been mistress of it for
the last hundred years, yet it has been the means of involving her in
almost continual war, and the support of it has always been attended
with enormous expense. He believed he was correct, when he stated that
from 1776 to 1789, the average expense of the navy of Great Britain
(including a period of seven years of war and six of peace) was six
millions of pounds sterling a year. Now, said Mr. G., if we calculate
the rate at which we shall be obliged to pay for every thing
appertaining to a navy, what will be the sum necessary to support a navy
of any extent here? Suppose a navy should only be one-tenth part of the
British, and instead of 120 ships-of-the-line, we should be content with
twelve. The expense, according to the British rate of expenditure, would
be £600,000 sterling, nearly three millions of dollars a year; but when
we know that we pay three times as much for our seamen as they do, it is
impossible precisely to calculate what the expense would be.

In relation to European nations, it would be found, that none had ever
derived any advantage from a navy, except Great Britain. It has been
said (and by high authority) that an extensive commerce cannot be
maintained without a navy. In answer to this it may be said, that Spain
has always had a considerable navy, but very little commerce; their
tonnage compared with ours was insignificant, yet theirs is the third
navy in Europe. Holland, for a time, had a powerful navy; but they gave
it up, as more expensive than beneficial, since the wars of Queen Anne.
Yet their commerce, on this account, never diminished in any
considerable degree. They are the second commercial nation in Europe;
and they never suffer for want of a navy, except when they become a
party in war; he conceived, therefore, that a navy is not necessary to
protect commerce. At this time, Mr. G. knew that the commerce of Holland
was in a great degree annihilated; but so was that of France and Spain,
notwithstanding their powerful navies. Holland being at the door of
Great Britain, may, in time of war, be altogether blocked up by the
fleets of that nation. Fortunately that was not our situation.

Mr. G. concluded by saying, that as he believed commerce might exist
independently of a navy; that a navy would cost far more than it would
ever benefit the country; and knowing our finances were not such as to
admit of the expense, he must hope his motion would prevail.


FRIDAY, February 8.

_Augmentation of the Navy._

The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for
augmenting the Navy, Mr. GALLATIN'S motion for striking out what
relates to 74-gun ships being under consideration.

Mr. JOSIAH PARKER hoped this amendment would not be agreed to. He was
happy to find, however, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania did not go
farther, and oppose the whole force, as he had heretofore always opposed
every thing like a navy. Indeed, he has acknowledged that our infant
navy has done some service, though he does not give to it all the credit
which the committee who reported this bill thinks it deserves. He
attributes the fall in insurance to other objects than the navy, because
he says it has fallen more on vessels to Europe, where our navy could
have had no effect, than to the West Indies, where that effect was more
likely to be produced. But the gentleman should have recollected that
the fall to Europe may have been occasioned by the vigilance of the
British navy; but in the West Indies, the British, or at least the
officers of the British men of war, seemed rather to countenance, than
prevent, the depredations of the French; as, in many instances, they
have suffered captures to be made by the French, and immediately
afterwards recaptured the vessels, and by that means obtained a salvage
upon them. Nor did he suppose the British Government would regret these
depredations, since they knew such treatment would serve to rouse the
resentment of this country against her enemy. Mr. P. supposed that the
saving produced by our navy had even been greater than the committee had
supposed, as, by the report made yesterday on the subject of our
exports, it appears they have been ten millions more than the committee
calculated them at. He allowed that our navy had not been the sole cause
of safety to our commerce; the British navy had also contributed greatly
to it. But it would be recollected that when this navy was first fitted
out, French privateers and picaroons were not only upon our coast, but
in our very bays; and, but for these measures, there can be no doubt,
but our shores would at this time have swarmed with French privateers,
which the British would have suffered, in order to widen the breach
between the two countries.

Mr. P. hoped when the quantity of shipping, and the number of seamen we
employ, is considered--that these are the means of bringing us from
foreign countries all that we desire to have from thence, and that they
thereby fill our treasury with money--gentlemen will not hesitate to
allow our commerce a competent protection. No nation, except Great
Britain, exceeds this country in the number of vessels and men engaged
in this service, yet no nation has done so little to protect them. He
trusted we should be allowed to have a sufficient navy to protect our
commerce and coast, and to cause us to be respected abroad.

The British Government, Mr. P. said, has 141 sail-of-the-line,
(according to Steele's list, which he had lately seen,) and these,
according to the opinion of the first statesman and politician that
England ever possessed, Lord Chatham, require as many thousand seamen;
not that each vessel requires 1000 men, but it is necessary to have this
number in order to employ their frigates and sloops of war, not that the
ships of the line require 1000 men; yet, though Britain has this immense
navy, she has not double the number of merchant vessels and seamen which
this country possesses. If, said Mr. P., these six 74-gun ships and six
sloops are agreed to, we shall not want more than 12,000 seamen to man
our navy. At present we have only 4,000; and the whole annual expense
will be 4,230,149 dollars. Mr. P. believed, in order to give us
efficient protection, we ought to have eleven sail-of-the-line; but as
he considered six to be as many as our present finances will allow, he
should be satisfied with that number.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania wished to be informed as to the expense
of a peace establishment of our navy. A large navy in time of peace
would be unnecessary; he should wish it, however, to be kept on a
respectable footing. Many of our ships, Mr. P. said, will last much
longer than the gentleman from Pennsylvania had supposed; some of them,
he doubted not, would last forty or fifty years. The British have ships
which have been in service thirty years; when poorly built they may not
last more than seven years. He had not made an estimate of what would be
the expense of a peace establishment with respect to the navy; nor did
he know what force the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES might think it
necessary to maintain in time of peace, but he supposed it would be
small, and a single officer and thirty men would be sufficient to take
care of a ship where she is laid up in ordinary: that only a few of the
best ships would be kept, and the others sold.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania had represented the expense of a navy in
this country as being much greater than in England; but when he spoke of
the pay of British sailors being only one shilling sterling a day, he
was certainly mistaken. They have at least a guinea and an half a month,
which is seven dollars; and ours average fourteen dollars, which is
double to that of England. If the same means were taken here that are
taken in England, of raising men by means of press-gangs (which,
however, he rejoiced never could be suffered in this country,) they
might, perhaps, be gotten on easier terms, as the Government might
follow the example of Great Britain, by fixing the pay and pressing the
men. He would much rather pay higher wages; especially when it is
considered that a very small part of the money paid to seamen will ever
go out of the country; they spend their money freely, and the United
States will not, therefore, lose it.

And as to the number of men employed in the navy, if they were not thus
employed in our own service, they would go abroad, since this is the
employment they choose; indeed, if all our citizens were employed in
cultivating the ground, our produce would be so great, and sell for so
little, as to make it scarcely worth the trouble of raising. And if we
do not provide for our own defence, we shall be at the mercy of every
foreign power which chooses to insult or ill-treat us. The interests of
commerce and agriculture must always go hand in hand; and farmers who
now get so much better a price for their product than they heretofore
got, ought to be the first in supporting a navy sufficient to protect
our vessels in carrying that produce to foreign countries. When they see
their interests more clearly, Mr. P. trusted they would, like the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, be ready to allow that our navy is of
service. It would be happy for us, and for the world, Mr. P. said, if
there were no use for navies, and nations might be permitted to carry
their productions wherever they pleased without annoyance; but, while
nations continue to make war upon each other, we must expect to come in
for our share of the evils of such a system, and it will be necessary to
have some force not only to guard against injuries, but to keep foreign
belligerent nations in check, lest we should throw our force into the
scale against them. The French Directory, said Mr. P., have lately
passed a decree, which ought to be considered as a declaration of war
against the world, "that the citizens of neutral countries found on
board of any of their ships shall be considered and punished as
_pirates_!" Where is the man, exclaimed he, who will not defend his
country and his fellow-citizens against such a decree?

Mr. P. said he would take the liberty of quoting the authority, on the
subject of a navy, of a gentleman who deservedly ranked high in public
estimation, and whom he was proud to call his countryman. The authority
he referred to was Mr. Jefferson's Notes on Virginia. He read the
following extract.

      "But the actual habits of our countrymen attach them to
      commerce. They will exercise it for themselves. Wars, then,
      must sometimes be our lot; and all the wise can do, will be
      to avoid that half of them which would be produced by our
      own follies, and our own acts of injustice; and to make for
      the other half the best preparations we can. Of what nature
      should these be? A land army would be useless for offence,
      and not the best nor safest instrument of defence. For
      either of these purposes, the sea is the field on which we
      should meet an European enemy. On that element it is
      necessary we should possess some power. To aim at such a
      navy as the greater nations of Europe possess, would be a
      foolish and wicked waste of the energies of our countrymen;
      it would be to pull on our own heads that load of military
      expense which makes the European laborer go supperless to
      bed, and moistens his bread with the sweat of his brow. It
      will be enough if we enable ourselves to prevent insults
      from those nations of Europe which are weak on the sea,
      because circumstances exist which render even the stronger
      ones weak as to us. Providence has placed their richest and
      most defenceless possessions at our door--has obliged their
      most precious commerce to pass, as it were, in review
      before us. To protect this, or to assail us, a small part
      only of their naval force will ever be risked across the
      Atlantic. The danger to which the elements expose them here
      are too well known, and the greater danger to which they
      would be exposed at home, were any general calamity to
      involve their whole fleet. They can attack us by detachment
      only; and it will suffice to make ourselves equal to what
      they may detach. Even a smaller force than what they may
      detach will be rendered equal or superior by the quickness
      with which any check may be repaired with us, while losses
      with them will be irreparable till too late. A small naval
      force, then, is sufficient for us, and a small one is
      necessary. What this should be, I will not undertake to
      say. I will only say, it should by no means be so great as
      we are able to make it."

Mr. P. perfectly concurred in this opinion. He had frequently expressed
it. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania says we have no money, and
therefore we ought neither to have a navy nor any thing else, to defend
ourselves at home or at sea. He tells the House that our revenue will
not exceed ten millions, and that if we agree to have these ships built,
we shall want twelve millions. Mr. P. trusted that if these two millions
were wanted the ways and means will be found, rather than that we shall
suffer our commerce to be destroyed, and lose all our credit as a nation
abroad. Admitting, said Mr. P., that our debt is a hundred millions of
dollars, it must be recollected that its increase has been owing to a
number of causes which could not be avoided, amongst which was our war
with the Indians, the Western insurrection, our treaty with Algiers, and
the building of vessels for the protection of our commerce; but if our
debt is fifteen millions more now than it was at the commencement of the
present Government, our numbers have greatly increased since that time,
so that he supposed, considering the number of individuals who have to
bear it, it is not so heavy, in proportion to our population, as it was
at that time. Having the ability, therefore, he trusted there would be
found the will to provide a respectable naval force to protect us at
home, our commerce abroad, and leave us in a situation to be more
respected by foreign nations than we have heretofore been, and therefore
hoped the present motion would be rejected.

Mr. HARPER.--Notwithstanding, Mr. Chairman, the subject now before the
committee, the usefulness of a Naval Establishment for the United
States, has been so frequently and so fully discussed on former
occasions, I deem it important to enter once more into a particular
consideration of it, less on account of the general reasons so often
urged against the measure, than of those particular objections, founded
on the supposed state of our pecuniary resources, whereby it has, at
this time, been assailed.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania has proved, as he thinks, that no
possible navy could be equal to the protection of our commerce, extended
as it is. And how has he proved this? By the example of other
nations--of Holland, Spain, and Great Britain. Spain, he says, has a
very considerable navy, perhaps the third in Europe, and yet no
commerce. Holland found herself unable to support her navy, and even
while she supported it, was unable to protect her trade; and therefore
she gave it up, and yet, after she had done so, continued to possess a
very great commerce. Even Britain, according to him, mistress of the
ocean as she has been for a century past, has not fully protected her
trade by her marine; which, in the mean time, has cost her more than the
whole sum which her trade has yielded--and, therefore, she would have
been better without a navy. This, Mr. Chairman, is the calculation of a
schoolboy, not of a statesman; of the counting-house, not of the
cabinet; and if the judgment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania were not
warped on this, as on so many other occasions, by his particular
political system, he would be one of the last persons in the world to
present the subject in a point of view so much beneath a mind of the
least political discernment. The gentleman, in fact, forgets that
Britain is indebted to her navy, not for her commerce only, but for her
independence; not only for the dominion of the seas, but for her
existence as a nation. Every man, who is in the smallest degree versed
in history, knows that Great Britain, but for her navy, must long since
have been a province of France. Had not Britain been mistress of the
ocean, France would long since have been not only her mistress, but
mistress of the rest of Europe. That great people, uniting within itself
all the sources of military, pecuniary, and maritime strength, has never
ceased to contend for universal empire, with immense means, vast genius,
boundless ambition and unwearied perseverance, since the period when,
two centuries ago, its provinces became united under one Government, and
its immense resources, managed and called into activity by a minister
whose mind was equal to his station, were directed to the increase of
its power and extension of its limits. How has Britain been enabled to
check this formidable career, to maintain her own power, and to arrive
at her present high pitch of consequence in the scale of nations? Not by
her population, which is little more than one-third of that possessed by
France; nor by her insular situation, which heretofore could not protect
her from invasion and conquest; nor by her military power, which, when
compared with that of France, has never been considerable--but by her
navy. It was that navy, and the wealth which commerce, protected by it,
poured into her lap, that enabled her to support with glory so unequal a
contest, to call to her aid the military force of Germany, and thus to
establish a counterpoise to the power of France. But for this naval
force, and the commerce which it protected and cherished--but for this
union, cemented by the money, and aided by the maritime preponderance of
England--France, combining, as she did, greater means of strength of
every kind than any other nation, or even than all the nations of
Europe united, except Germany and Great Britain, must long since have
established her dominion over all. England must have fallen first, being
unable, without the command of the sea, to save herself from invasion;
and then the powers of the Continent, deprived of the pecuniary aid
wherewith England was enabled by her commerce, under the protection of
her navy, to supply and unite them, would have bent, one after another,
beneath her formidable and continually augmenting strength. Even now
this same navy enables England to ride secure amidst the most terrible
storm wherewith the political world has ever been afflicted; to brave
all the tremendous dangers by which she has been threatened; to baffle
every attempt against her safety, or that of her remotest possessions;
and amidst the dismay, the humiliation, or the total overthrow of so
many powers, to triumph over her rival, whose strength, always
formidable, is exercised, not more by her extension of territory and of
influence, than by the consternation wherewith her successes have
stricken other States, by the disunion and feebleness which has
characterized their counsels, by the terrible weapon of internal
commotion with which she threatens, or has actually assailed them, and
by the unheard of despotism of her own Government, which enables it to
employ, in a degree hitherto unexampled in the history of civilized men,
the physical forces of the nation, in executing its plans of plunder and
conquest. This same navy enables England not only to maintain thus
gloriously a conflict so dreadful and so unequal, but to stand the
barrier between independence and universal dominion, between liberty and
the most degrading despotism, between civilization and the barbarism of
the dark ages--to become the citadel of property, the storehouse and the
banker of the world, and to render all nations, with their own consent,
tributary, by means of her commerce, to the support of her greatness.

What, then, Mr. Chairman, must we think of that political system which
estimates the British navy by a calculation of the sums which it has
cost to maintain it; forgetting that, without this navy, there would
have been no wealth to supply these sums, and, perhaps, no nation to pay
them; that without this navy, Great Britain, instead of holding her
present exalted station among the powers of the earth, must long since
have sunk into a secondary and unimportant State; and, probably, into
the condition of a province of that very rival against whom she now so
nobly and so gloriously contends! Is it too much to say of such a
calculation, that it is a paltry calculation, unworthy of a statesman,
and befitting only a schoolboy?

But even the navy of Great Britain, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has
told us, formidable as it is, has not afforded complete protection to
her commerce. How, then, he asks, can we expect to protect our commerce
by a navy? If the gentleman means by "protection" the total prevention
of captures at sea, it is certain that no nation ever did, or ever can
protect its commerce, in that scale. But that is not the true idea of
"protection," which means nothing more than such a degree of safety as
may enable the merchants of a nation, taken as a body, to pursue their
commercial enterprises without discouragement, or eventual loss. This is
all the protection that is ever attempted, or that is necessary; and
this, I contend, we have it in our power to give.

Respecting the navy of Holland, the gentleman from Pennsylvania falls
into a mistake equally remarkable. Holland, he tells us, has no navy,
and yet maintains a very great commerce. Formerly she had a navy, but
could not maintain it, and was forced to give it up. But where did that
gentleman learn that Holland has no navy? Had she no navy in the
American war, when with great gallantry, though with unequal success,
she fought the English at sea? Had she no navy when she fitted out the
formidable armament under De Winter, in October, 1797, which, after a
dreadful conflict, was defeated rather by the superior address of the
British Admiral, than the superior force or bravery of his fleet? Do we
not know, that even now, after this fatal defeat, she possesses, in her
different harbors, a much more numerous fleet than is proposed by the
present bill for the United States? How then could the gentleman from
Pennsylvania say that Holland has no navy? He ought to have known that
until the marine of France and Spain were destroyed, in the present war,
that of Holland was sufficient to turn the scale in their favor and
against England; which gave her not only security for her commerce, but
respectability and weight among the maritime powers of Europe.

As to the other assertion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that
Holland a long time ago found her navy too burdensome for her resources,
and therefore gave it up, it is equally erroneous. Holland, as we have
seen, never gave up her navy, and even now, exhausted and ruined as she
is by French fraternity and internal revolution, maintains a much
greater one than is proposed for the United States. There is, indeed, a
period in her history, the close of the last and the beginning of the
present century, when she ceased to be ranked with the first maritime
powers of Europe; but that happened, not through the want of means, but
a mistake in policy. Before that period her system had been wholly
maritime. All her resources were applied to her navy. A maritime armed
neutrality was her great object, and she long preserved it with success.
Her commerce, fostered by her marine, spread over every sea; and the
Northern maritime States, guided to the same policy by her influence,
acknowledged her as their umpire, their mediator, and their safeguard.
The great powers courted her alliance and respected her rights. She
interfered with weight in their disputes. Her village of the Hague
became the centre of their most important negotiations. She disputed
the empire of the seas with them singly; and, at one time, she held the
united forces of France and England in check at sea, and finally
compelled the French armies to retreat from her territory, which they
had overrun and occupied. All this she effected by means of her navy,
and of the resources which it had furnished to her by the protection of
her commerce.

At this period she altered her system, and instead of cherishing her
marine, and confining herself solely to the maintenance of her commerce,
by an armed maritime neutrality at the head of the Northern Powers, she
engaged in the land wars of the great military powers, and made
exertions disproportionate to her strength, whereby her resources were
exhausted. Into this fatal mistake she was drawn by the aspiring
ambition, the popularity, and the heroism of one of her own citizens,
stimulated and aided by the aggressions, the insults, and the alarming
encroachments of the French Monarch, Louis XIV., at the zenith of his
glory, evidently aspiring to universal dominion. William III., placed by
his birth and personal merit at the head of the Dutch nation, saw those
objects of French ambition, and roused his own country to resistance.
Called, at length, to the Government of England, he communicated to that
nation his own martial ardor. He finally succeeded in forming a
confederacy to check the progress of France. Of this confederacy,
Holland, his native country, was induced by his influence to become a
principal member. At the head of it he struggled against the power of
France, with unequal means, and sometimes with unprosperous fortune, but
with a genius and perseverance not to be subdued, and a heroism rarely
to be equalled. After his death, the impulse which his mind had given to
his own and other countries continued to be felt, and the confederacy
was renewed under his successor, on a different occasion, but with the
same views. At length its object was altered. France was completely
humbled and Europe secured against her enterprises, but the strength of
Holland was undermined in the struggle. The vast armies which she had
kept up had loaded her with debts. Her operations for so many years, by
land, had drawn off her attention from her marine; and from that moment
it declined, while that of England rose gradually on its ruins.

Hence, Mr. Chairman, the downfall of the maritime greatness of Holland.
Her resources were not equal to the maintenance of fleets and armies, of
both maritime and military strength. While she was left to attend solely
to her maritime concerns, she continued to be powerful, respected, and
prosperous; but her situation on the Continent, in the neighborhood of a
great and ambitious military power, drew her, perhaps unnecessarily,
into land wars, to which her strength was unequal, and, of course, her
naval power declined. But still she continued for a century to keep up a
navy sufficient to form a considerable weight in the scale, and to
secure attention to her rights as a nation; and under this security her
commerce continued to flourish, in a greater or less degree, till a
domestic revolution, aiding and aided by foreign oppression, dried up
all its sources.

What, then, Mr. Chairman, is the instruction which we may draw from this
example? A nation whose population never exceeded two millions and a
half, and whose territory, compared with ours, is but a mere speck on
the surface of the globe, a mere garden spot, was able to maintain a
most formidable marine, while it attended to that object solely, to
extend its commerce under the protection of this marine, and to maintain
not only an equal, but a distinguished rank, among the great powers of
Europe, by whose territories it was surrounded, and by whose formidable
armies it was liable to be invaded. Even this nation, after a mistake in
its policy, or the pressure of inevitable circumstances, it had been
induced to divert its attention from its marine to land wars, to exhaust
its resources, and burden itself with debts too great for its means, by
these disproportionate efforts, still was able to preserve a navy
sufficient to give respectability to its flag, and a degree of safety to
its commerce. Even now, when its resources are dried up by anarchy, or
diverted by foreign exaction into the coffers of another nation; when
its territory is curtailed, and its population reduced to one million
and a half; when it is compelled to maintain an army of 25,000 men for
France, still it has a navy greater than we propose. Shall it, then, be
said, that this country, with probably six millions of population, most
rapidly increasing, with an extent of territory capable of containing
fifty millions, with a commerce greater than that of Holland ever was,
and with more tonnage and sailors than she ever possessed, is not able
to support such a navy as she, even since the commencement of her
downfall, has always supported, and still supports? Yes, it is said by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania; but the good sense of this House and of
this country will, I trust, correct his mistake, as it has so often done
heretofore.

But if it were true, Mr. Chairman, that Holland had afforded no
protection to her commerce by the navy which she has been able to keep
up, does it follow that the same thing will happen to us? Will the same
navy be more efficacious in our case, than in the case of Holland, or
Spain, or Portugal? This must be taken for granted in order to give any
solidity to the argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and yet
nothing can be more untrue. Those States are situated at the very door
of the great maritime powers, and their dominions are also exposed to
invasion by land. They must, therefore, either singly or by combinations
with other powers, contend against the whole maritime force of those
great States, and must maintain navies adequate to that purpose. But we
are under no such necessity. Placed at a vast distance from those great
powers, and in the neighborhood of those possessions which contribute
most to the support of their commerce and their navies, we can attack
them in a weak, and yet a vital part, with our whole force, while but a
small part of their force can at any time be brought to act against us.
It is with this part only that we shall have to contend, should they at
any time drive us into a war. Let us take England as an instance. Her
great and valuable possessions lie at our threshold. The uniform course
of the trade-winds compels all her vast and rich commerce with those
possessions, to pass almost in sight of our shores. The force which she
can send to protect this commerce and annoy us, in case of a rupture,
will not be her whole force, but that part of it only which she can
spare from Europe, after securing her preponderance there. France,
notwithstanding the prostrate condition of her navy at present,
possesses maritime means which will speedily enable her to raise it up
again, whensoever those means come to be directed, as one day they must,
by a Government of some understanding. This navy, and the maritime
combinations which will be formed under its protection, England must
watch and keep under. Her existence will depend upon it. She will,
therefore, have but little force to spare which she can bring to act
against us. A comparatively small maritime force, therefore, will compel
her to respect us, and to avoid a quarrel with us by all just and
reasonable means.

It follows that a moderate navy, a much smaller one than Holland, Spain,
or even Portugal, have supported, would be sufficient for our
protection, aided by the peculiar advantages of our situation. Those
nations, inconsiderable as they are when compared to us in population,
wealth, and extent of territory, have supported navies which, however
unequal to that of England, have yet afforded some degree of protection
to their trade, rendered their flags in some degree respectable, and
given them a weight in the scale, a consequence among nations, which
otherwise they could not have had. And shall not we, with our great and
increasing resources, and the peculiar advantages of our situation, be
able to effect still more?

Mr. NICHOLAS said this question was different from any former question,
with respect to the Navy, which had been before the House. Whatever
gentlemen may have heretofore said with respect to the advantages of a
navy for the protection of our commerce, they must agree that the
present question has a different aspect, as no man can say that
seventy-four gun ships are calculated to resist the kind of force which
has heretofore made attacks upon our commerce in the West Indies.

Mr. N. was far from believing that our armed vessels had produced the
effect which the committee, who reported this bill, stated them to have
done. He thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania had adduced many
sufficient reasons for the fall which had taken place in the price of
insurance, independent of our navy; and that, therefore, the committee
were wholly mistaken that the advantages already derived from our navy
have exceeded the cost of it; and that, if it had been established
several years ago, it would have proved a great saving to the United
States.

Mr. N. confessed he had always been opposed to a naval force for the
purpose of warring with European nations, and whether the force now
proposed is considered as necessary for defence or offence, it must have
that character. The propriety of a naval force for this purpose never
appeared to him in a questionable point of view; he thought every
consideration of policy and interest forbids it. We are well informed,
said he, by the best historians, that the British navy has been the
means of sinking that nation to its present state; for he could not
admire, like the gentleman from South Carolina, the splendor and
prosperity of a nation, which is brought into such a situation as to
render it doubtful whether it can exist for a day, a month, or any other
period. If the navy of Great Britain, then, commenced under different
circumstances from those in which we are placed--which, according to the
gentleman from South Carolina, was not only for the protection of her
commerce, but as a defence against neighboring nations, and to guard
against the worst revolutionary principles--has nearly ruined that
country by the immense sums necessary for its support, shall we, who,
according also to the confession of that gentleman, have nothing to fear
from European nations--[Mr. HARPER interrupted Mr. N. to deny that he
had said we had nothing to fear from Europe. He had said we had nothing
to fear but from the sea.] Mr. N. said this was the way in which he
understood the gentleman, and that no danger exists of any invasion by a
land force. If this is the case, the use to which a navy can be put will
only be to defend our commerce from cruisers, and passing fleets. We
have not, therefore, half the inducements to the establishment of a navy
which influence European nations, and many powerful reasons against such
a force.

The European nations have, most of them, distant colonies, which they
have to protect, and with which they have to keep up a constant
communication across the ocean, which renders a navy in some degree
necessary. But all the European nations commenced their navies under the
delusion that a small force would only be necessary, and that one or two
ships would give them an ascendency over other nations. Can we expect
this, said Mr. N.? No; we begin the business with fewer inducements than
any other nation ever begun a navy, and without necessity; for it is
acknowledged we have nothing now to apprehend from invasion, (and if we
had, this force could not be provided in time,) we have no colonies to
protect, and no intercourse which calls for a naval force.

We cannot, therefore, said Mr. N., embark in this business with the same
motives which influenced all European nations in establishments of this
kind. They built small navies because they would be equal to cope with
the small navies of their neighbors; but we are about to begin the
business with a navy staring us in the face, the most formidable that
any man could suppose to exist. According to his colleague, the British
have 140 sail-of-the-line; and yet our navy is undertaken with the
avowed purpose of keeping her, as well as the other nations of Europe,
in check. Mr. N. asked whether we could ever hope to succeed in a plan
of this kind? We certainly could not, since Great Britain would always
even in war have more than a sufficient force to meet all the ships
which we can build. Besides, if our situation, as gentlemen say, will
make a small force so operative in our hands in time of European wars,
will not our possessing it be sufficient to produce war with Great
Britain, when it is always a sufficient cause for war, in the opinion of
Great Britain, for any other maritime power to put a few more ships in
commission than their ordinary establishment? And, if Congress were to
order the building of fifty ships, it would only increase the certainty
of this effect. How is a naval force to guard us, which Great Britain
can destroy, whenever she pleases, even in time of war? For she has
frequently ships sufficient on our coast to destroy all the vessels
which are contemplated to be built. In short, this navy will be the
means of keeping this country in continual broils. On the first
appearance of arming any additional vessels on the part of Great
Britain, for whatever cause, we must set on foot a negotiation to
combine the other powers of Europe in our favor; and this country will
become the centre of intrigue and tricks for the agents of every
country.

But the gentleman from South Carolina says, this is the cheapest mode of
defence; but does the gentleman prove this? Can he prove that
£10,000,000 sterling is only the third part of the expense of defence,
as he says? Does he not recollect how much of the revenue of that
country goes to pay the interest of their enormous debt, and, therefore,
cannot be considered as a part of the expenditure for defence? The
gentleman will find, on reflection, he is much mistaken in his
calculation in this respect. The gentleman from South Carolina has been
loud in his encomiums on the British navy, on account of its usefulness
to the world; and he calls the calculation of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, relative to the expenses of a navy, a paltry, schoolboy
calculation, because it has not taken into view this usefulness. That
gentleman, said Mr. N., only referred to the British navy so far as it
was useful in the way gentlemen say they expect ours to be advantageous.
But from the contradictions which the gentleman from South Carolina
seemed to run into on this subject, he did believe that he had not an
eye to a navy, merely for the defence of our commerce; he appeared to
wish that this country should take a stand like that of Great Britain,
that the safety of the world may, at a future day, depend upon us, as
it now does upon Great Britain. Mr. N. believed the ambition of this
country, the pride of its Government, and naval commanders, will all
operate this way; and we may, one day or other, if we proceed with this
navy scheme, be as aspiring, as domineering, as any other nation in the
world, and by this means be embroiled in continual war, and be saddled
with a debt equal to that of Great Britain.

Mr. N. believed there existed no good reason for going into the
establishment of a navy at all, because he believed it would never be
really useful to this country; but if it should be otherwise determined
by a majority of Congress, this, he thought, of all times the most
improper to commence the work.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS then moved to strike out what relates to 18-gun vessels,
on the ground that the thirty-nine small vessels which we have are
sufficient. The motion was negatived without a division.

Mr. J. PARKER proposed filling up the blanks in the section fixing the
pay of captains in the Navy, with an advance from $75 to $100 per month
to captains of 74's, and others in proportion; except the masters of
vessels under 20 guns, which were proposed to be lowered.

Some objection, however, being made to this, and particularly to the
mode of doing the business, this being the first time that the subject
had been before the House, the section was moved to be struck out, and
carried.

The committee then rose, and the House having concurred in the amendment
reported,

Mr. NICHOLAS renewed the motion for striking out the 74-gun ships, and
called the yeas and nays upon it. They were taken and stood, yeas 40,
nays 54, as follows:

      YEAS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Richard Brent, Robert
      Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles,
      Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, John Dawson, Joseph
      Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John Fowler,
      Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A.
      Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph
      Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston,
      Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph
      McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner,
      William Smith, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thomas
      Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

      NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jun., Bailey Bartlett,
      James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Stephen
      Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran, William
      Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, George Dent, William
      Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan
      Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon,
      Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper,
      Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James
      H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir,
      William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison
      G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John
      Read, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall,
      Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight,
      Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark
      Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Alen, Peleg
      Wadsworth, Robert Waln, and John Williams.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading [and
passed by the same vote].[44]


THURSDAY, February 14.

_Relations with France._

Mr. LIVINGSTON called up for consideration the resolution which he
yesterday laid upon the table, calling upon the PRESIDENT for any
information which he may possess touching the suspension of the French
arrêt, declaring neutral citizens pirates when found on board the
vessels of belligerent powers; which being read,

Mr. L. called the yeas and nays upon it. He said he understood that,
since yesterday, a member of this House had applied at the office of the
Secretary of State, and had been informed that some information had been
received relative to this subject. Perhaps the gentleman would himself
state to the House what he had learned from that office.

Mr. HARPER said, he had only to state, that he had made inquiry at the
office of the Secretary of State, and had been informed that a letter
had been received from our Minister in London, enclosing an extract from
the _Redacteur_ (supposed to be an official French paper) stating that
the Executive Directory had suspended the edict in question. This
extract, he understood, does not state the reason of this suspension;
but our Minister writes it was owing to a threat of the British
Government to retaliate upon French citizens within their power.

The yeas and nays were taken, and stood--52 to 38.


_Naval Pay._

On motion of Mr. JOSIAH PARKER, the House resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole, on the bill fixing the pay of captains of ships
and vessels of the United States; and after some amendments, the bill
was reported, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

[This bill provides "that all vessels in the service of the United
States, mounting 20 guns and upward, be commanded by captains; those not
exceeding 18 guns (except galleys, which are to be commanded as
heretofore provided by law,) by masters or lieutenants, according to the
size of the vessel, to be regulated by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES; that the pay of a captain, commanding ships of 32 guns and
upward, be $100 dollars per month, and eight rations per day; of
captains, commanding ships of 20 and under 32 guns, $75 a month, and six
rations a day; of a master-commandant, $60 per month, and five rations
per day; and of lieutenants who may command the smaller vessels, $50
dollars per month, and four rations per day; that whenever any officer
as aforesaid shall be employed in the command of a squadron, in separate
service, the allowance of rations to such commanding officer shall be
doubled during the continuance of such command, and no longer, except in
case of a commanding officer of the Navy, whose allowance, while in
service, shall always be at the rate of sixteen rations per day."]


FRIDAY, February 8.

_Relations with France._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

      In pursuance of the request, in your resolve of yesterday,
      I lay before you such information as I have received,
      touching a suspension of the arrêt of the French Republic,
      communicated to your House by my Message of the 28th of
      January last. But if the execution of that arrêt be
      suspended, or even if it were repealed, it should be
      remembered that the arrêt of the Executive Directory of the
      2d of March, 1797, remains in force, the third article of
      which subjects explicitly and exclusively American seamen
      to be treated as pirates, if found on board ships of the
      enemies of France.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _February 15, 1799_.

      _Extract of a letter from Rufus King, Esq., Minister
      Plenipotentiary, &c., London, to the Secretary of State,
      dated 28th November, 1798._

      "Annexed I send you a copy of a note from Lord Grenville,
      respecting the French arrêt transmitted to you with my No.
      9. A late French paper contains a second arrêt which
      postpones the execution of the first."


_Lord Grenville to Mr. King._

      The undersigned, His Majesty's Secretary of State for
      Foreign Affairs, has the honor of communicating to Mr.
      King, Minister Plenipotentiary for the United States of
      America, for the information of his Government, that, by a
      decree, published officially at Paris, it appears to have
      been declared, in the name of the French Directory, that
      every person being a native of or originally belonging to
      neutral countries, or to such as are in amity and alliance
      with the French Republic, who shall bear any commission
      under His Majesty, or who shall form a part of the crews of
      any British ships of war, or other vessels, should, on the
      proof of that fact alone, be considered and treated as a
      pirate, and that it has been ordered that this resolution
      shall be notified to the neutral powers, and to those in
      alliance with France.

      Even this decree, contrary as it is to the usages of every
      civilized nation, cannot excite any surprise, as proceeding
      from those in whose name it has been published. To the
      different powers who are thus insulted, and whose innocent
      subjects are exposed to the most cruel treatment on the
      part of a Government professing friendship or alliance with
      them, His Majesty must leave it to adopt such measures as
      they will, without doubt, judge necessary, in the case of
      an outrage hitherto unexampled in the history of the world.

      The King, however, feels, that protection is also due from
      him to those who sail under his flag, either in His
      Majesty's ships of war, or in other British vessels; His
      Majesty has, therefore, not hesitated to direct it to be
      signified to the Commissioner for French prisoners in Great
      Britain, that the first instance of the execution of this
      decree shall be followed by the most rigorous retaliation
      against the French prisoners, whom the fortune of war has
      already, or may hereafter place at the King's disposal.

      It would certainly never be but with extreme reluctance
      that the King could yield to the painful necessity of
      exposing so many unfortunate individuals to the fatal but
      inevitable effects of this atrocious decree; but His
      Majesty will have at least the satisfaction of feeling that
      nothing has been omitted on his part to prevent its
      execution, and that the authors of it can alone be
      considered responsible for all its guilt and all its
      consequences.

                          GRENVILLE.

      DOWNING STREET, _November 27, 1798_.

Mr. LIVINGSTON moved that this communication be printed.

Mr. ALLEN objected to the motion as it would delay the consideration of
the bill proposing to vest the PRESIDENT with the power of retaliation
in certain cases; and it was clear, from this communication, it ought to
have no effect upon that bill.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said he was not possessed of that intuitive faculty which
the gentleman from Connecticut seemed to have, as he seems prepared to
act on the bill alluded to, without scarcely hearing this communication
read; and, perhaps, without knowing the dates of the different decrees.
The PRESIDENT has told the House that though the obnoxious decree has
been repealed, there is still left in force another decree. Does the
gentleman from Connecticut recollect the words of that decree? Or has he
had time to examine whether that decree is really in force, or not? If
he had done this, Mr. L. said he had not done it. It would appear, from
what happened the other day, that the House ought not to move quite so
rapidly in this business. The House was then told by the gentleman from
South Carolina, that it was impossible that this information could have
been received by the PRESIDENT, because, if it had been received, the
PRESIDENT would undoubtedly have immediately sent it to the House. [Mr.
RUTLEDGE said, he did not use the word impossible, but improbable.] Mr.
L. admitted this might be the word. But it now appears, that the
PRESIDENT has not only received the information then alluded to, but
received it officially.

Mr. ALLEN interrupted Mr. L. by withdrawing his motion. The
communication was ordered to be printed, and was committed to the same
Committee of the Whole to whom was referred the bill vesting the power
of retaliation in the PRESIDENT.


MONDAY, February 18.

_Army Increase._

A bill from the Senate giving eventual authority to the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES to augment the army. [This bill gives the PRESIDENT
authority, in case a war shall break out between the United States and
any foreign power, or in case of imminent danger of such war, in his
opinion to exist, to organize and raise twenty-four regiments of
infantry, one regiment of riflemen, and three regiments of cavalry. The
PRESIDENT is also authorized to call out the volunteer corps, on all
occasions in which he is at present authorized to call out the militia,
provided that he does not call a greater proportion from any one State,
than he is authorized to call out of the militia, by the law which
directs the 80,000 militia to be held in readiness. If it be necessary
to carry this law into effect, two millions of dollars are appropriated
for the purpose.]

On the question for reading this bill a second time, it was carried--45
to 37.


_Capture of French Vessels._

On motion of Mr. OTIS, the House went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
RUTLEDGE in the chair, on the bill encouraging the capture of French
armed vessels, by armed ships or vessels, owned by a citizen or citizens
of the United States, and for allowing salvage in certain cases. The
bill, which proposes a bounty on guns, according to their sizes, having
been read,

Mr. MCDOWELL observed, that this bill is similar to the one which was
two or three different times negatived at the last session. At that
time, he considered the situation of this country more alarming than at
present, and the conduct of France more likely to drive us to
extremities than it has since been. Knowing this, he did not expect
gentlemen would have introduced a bill of this kind. Finding however
that gentlemen are not satisfied with things as they are, but are
desirous of hiring the people of the United States to make war upon
France, though they are unwilling to declare war, and not being willing
to give his vote to any such measure, he should move to strike out the
first section of the bill.

The question was put, when there appeared 43 votes for it, and 42
against it, and the Chairman said "it is carried," before he declared
his vote to be in the negative.

A motion was made for the committee to rise, and negatived--43 to 42.


WEDNESDAY, February 20.

MATTHEW LYON, from Vermont, appeared, and took his seat in the House.


_Alien and Sedition laws._

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, he had received, under cover, a number of petitions
from the State of Vermont, praying for a repeal of the alien and
sedition laws, which he begged leave to present to the House. One of
which having been read, in which, among their other objections to the
laws, the petitioners complain of having been deprived, by the sedition
law, of their Representative in Congress for the greater part of the
present session; Mr. L. moved to have the whole referred to the select
committee to whom was referred the other petitions relative to this
subject; but on Mr. GALLATIN's suggesting that he understood that
committee is ready to report, and that it would therefore be better to
suffer the petitions to lie on the table until that report is made, and
then have the whole referred to the same Committee of the Whole; that
course was taken.


_Capture of French Vessels._

The House took up the report of the Committee of the Whole on the bill
for encouraging the capture of French privateers, by allowing a bounty
on guns, and the motion being to concur in the agreement of the
committee to strike out the first section of the bill,

Mr. MACON said, there were some other observations made the other day,
when this subject was under consideration, which he thought very foreign
to the subject. The history of this bill during the last session was
given. The House was told it was three times rejected--once by trick. He
was surprised to hear two gentlemen make use of this expression. If
there was any trick, it certainly was among those gentlemen who had so
frequently brought the subject before the House. It had been said, also,
that it was once rejected by accident. It was the first time he had ever
heard it urged as a reason for reconsidering a subject, that certain
members had before voted accidentally upon it. Another reason was given,
that the vote in the Committee of the Whole had been improperly
obtained, by taking advantage of a mistake of the Chairman. By the rules
of the House, Mr. M. said, the Speaker, or Chairman of a Committee of
the Whole, has a casting vote, or they may tie a vote; but, after the
Chairman had declared the question carried, it might be supposed he did
not mean to vote, or if he did that he meant to vote with the majority.

Mr. M. said, he had seen a letter printed in the papers from one of our
naval commanders in the West Indies, wherein he says, that American
vessels sail into the neighborhood of the French islands, in order to be
carried in; that they afterwards get away, pretending to have made their
escape, and soon return with another cargo. He also mentions having
fallen in with one of these vessels evidently steering for a French
island, but the vessel's papers were so well managed, and the captain
and mate understood each other so well, that he could make nothing of
them. If, said Mr. M., the laws for suspending our intercourse with
France and her possessions can be so easily evaded, might it not be
expected that this law would be evaded, and that privateers might be
fitted out in the West Indies, and brought to a certain latitude, for
the purpose of being taken? He had no doubt this would be the case.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, that when this bill was before under discussion, he
had stated that our situation with respect to France appeared to be more
favorable than last year. This was denied by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS.) He considers our danger greater, and this bill
more necessary than at that time; and has gone on to remark, that all
that was said about our improved situation with respect to France, were
songs only fit for children, and not for the people of America. He was
of a different opinion; they were the songs of peace, and as such, he
believed, suited to the people of this country, who wish to live in
peace. And if that gentleman knew more of the evils attendant on war
than he does, he certainly would not be so ready to embrace them as he
appears to be.

But he thought the gentleman from Massachusetts mistaken as to our
situation; he believed it to be much better than it was at the last
session. He formed this opinion from the despatches of Mr. Gerry, who
declares it to be his opinion, that France is sincerely disposed to make
peace; and more particularly from the PRESIDENT having nominated a
Minister to treat with France, though he had declared he never would
send another Minister until he should receive assurances that he would
be received as the Minister of a great, free, and powerful nation. He
supposed, therefore, that the PRESIDENT has received these assurances,
and that we have, on this account, some reason to hope, that a
reconciliation between the two Governments will take place.

He was opposed to this bill, because it might be the means of bringing
the country into difficulties and war; it was giving to one part of our
citizens the power to embroil the whole. No necessity has been shown to
exist for this law; it is, indeed, said to be necessary to keep down the
privateers of France, but we find by letters which have just been
published, from the commanders of our armed vessels, that there are very
few to be seen. But supposing there are yet a number of them, what
better use can our public armed vessels be put to than to go after them?
They must either be employed in doing this, or sent where he did not
wish them to go, to the European seas, or kept useless at home.

Mr. GALLATIN would not have troubled the House on this subject, had it
not been for the remark of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS)
immediately before the adjournment took place on Monday. He told the
House that the vote on this subject ought not to be influenced by the
nomination of a minister to go to France; and he precluded any answer
being then given to the remark, by moving an adjournment.

For my part, said Mr. G., I do not consider this bill as very important
in itself, and I have always been at a loss to know why there appeared
to be so great an anxiety to have it passed. It is said, we ought not to
recede from the ground we have taken; and really, from the arguments of
the gentleman from Massachusetts, it would appear that there was a
motion before the House to prevent our merchants from arming their
vessels, or our public vessels from taking French privateers. This
measure brings us to the question, not whether we will recede, but
whether we will progress. The object of this bill is not to authorize
any new measure, but it is to give a bounty to merchants to do what they
are already authorized to do. The only question is, whether it will
promote the taking of French privateers? He believed it would produce no
effect at all, except the blanks in the bill are to be filled with sums
which would produce a very serious demand on our treasury. The object of
merchants is to make a safe and quick voyage, and if privateers will
keep out of their way, they will never go in search of them: and if they
should fall in with a privateer, their aim would be self-defence, and
not capture, since to attempt this might hazard the loss of their vessel
and valuable cargo, and take from them means of defence against any
other attack, since they must put their own men on board the captured
privateer.

It is clear, therefore, said Mr. G., that one of two things must take
place, either we must give such a bounty on the guns of privateers as
will make the expense of taking them greater than the benefit, or else
it will become a mere matter of speculation, or small vessels will be
fitted out on purpose to obtain the bounty. When privateers are taken by
other countries, they are always taken by their vessels of war, and
seldom by letters of marque.

But it is said this measure ought to be taken, in order to strengthen
the hands of our Minister, by showing our determination to resist, in
case an accommodation does not take place. On the same grounds, Mr. G.
said, a declaration of war might be urged.

As to the effect to be expected from the appointment of a Minister to
treat with France, he considered it merely as opening a door to
negotiation. He agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts, that it
ought by no means to be considered as putting an end to the dispute
between the two countries. It may succeed, or not. But this step having
been taken, he did not think proper to go into a measure of this kind,
especially since it can be attended with so little good effect.

Mr. JOSIAH PARKER said, when he gave notice to the House on Monday of
the nomination of a Minister to go to France, and declared that, on that
account, he should vote against this bill, he did not do so because he
was willing to relax from any of our measures of defence or offence
against the French; but because he thought the measure proposed by this
bill puerile and ineffectual, and therefore unnecessary. When he made
this declaration, he was sorry to differ in opinion from the gentleman
from Massachusetts, with whom he had had the honor to vote very
frequently. At the same time that he said this, he declared himself
ready to abide by every measure of defence yet adopted, and even to take
higher ground than has yet been taken: for he had no opinion either of
the magnanimity or sincerity of the French Republic. He believed they
had no desire for peace, except such as arose from their changed
situation. He thought it better, however, not to go into any little,
irritating measure, like this. The PRESIDENT had heretofore told the
House that he would never send another Minister to France until he
received assurances that he would be properly received; he believed the
PRESIDENT had received these assurances from the French Minister at the
Hague, through our Minister there.

Mr. P. thought the second section of this bill, allowing a salvage on
the retaking of any of our vessels, ought to pass; the first he hoped
would be struck out.

Mr. PINCKNEY was sorry to differ in opinion from the gentleman just sat
down as to the expediency of passing this bill. He did not think it a
measure of great importance; but, as an additional measure of defence,
it may have some effect, and he was therefore for agreeing to it. He
thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) had put the
prospect of a negotiation with France upon a proper footing; and he
agreed with that gentleman that we ought not to vary the ground we have
already taken; but he did not think that any augmentation of force would
be going off the ground originally taken.

What, asked Mr. P., was the ground taken at the last session, and acted
upon at this? It was, that we should, by all means in our power, prepare
for our defence, more especially that we should add to every measure of
defence to which our revenue is adequate, on the ocean. We have shown
this to be our determination both at the last session and this, and our
preparations have only been limited by our ability to make them. This
measure, therefore, is a continuance of the same ground.

This bill reverts, therefore, altogether upon the question of
expediency, and this he thought the proper footing on which to place
it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has objected to its expediency,
because he says it will be inefficacious. Mr. P. would give a short
answer to this, which was, that its expense will be commensurate with
its utility. There is no doubt, if it has any effect at all; if it
induces any private armed vessels of the United States to bring into our
ports privateers which are depredating on our commerce, no moderate
reward could be too great to be given for this advantage. And if there
is nothing done; if the law proves ineffectual, then the public is
nothing out of pocket. It is one of those cheap expedients which may be
beneficial, but which can have no bad consequences.

Mr. HARPER believed that gentlemen, in their deliberations on this
subject, have fallen into some mistakes as to the course which this bill
took at the last session. Mr. H. gave the history of this bill, and also
spoke of the decision which had taken place in Committee of the Whole as
by no means conclusive. On the general policy of the measure, he was not
inclined to make any observations. He believed it was well understood;
but he would not omit this occasion of declaring, that, in his opinion,
its policy had not been changed by the nomination which has taken place
of a Minister to treat with the French Republic.

It is said that an intimation has been made, not through the Dutch
Minister, but through the Secretary of Legation at the Hague, to our
Minister there, that the French government is disposed to receive any
Minister Plenipotentiary which we may choose to appoint, suitable to the
dignity due to the representative of a great, free, and independent
nation. This intimation having been given to the PRESIDENT, he has
thought it proper to meet the advance so far as to nominate a Minister,
which Minister is to go to France, provided he shall receive assurances
of being properly received, and a Minister of equal rank appointed to
treat with him.

This change, Mr. H. said, from haughty insolence; from the expulsion of
our Minister; from a demand of tribute; from requiring apologies for
speeches; from outrage and insult, to the mild language of supplication,
must certainly have been owing to the measures of this Government, and
therefore clearly evinced the policy and propriety of these measures. We
have thus far, said Mr. H., seen the good effects of buckling on our
armor, at the same time that we hold out the olive branch. And instead
of relaxing, we ought now to brace up the system; not that he would wish
to take any new ground but merely reinforce and invigorate the system
already established. This he thought the true policy of this country.
Whether this application for a negotiation on the part of the French
Republic may arise from sincerity, or from a wish to wheedle this
country to their own advantage, or because they perceive we are not to
be bullied into submission, and therefore it is best to live on
friendly terms with us, he held it wise policy in us to enlarge our
means both of defence and offence, until our dispute with France is
brought to a close. He, therefore, thought it of more importance to
adopt this measure now than heretofore; because, if it is not carried,
it may be supposed that we have forborne to adopt it, because we are
disposed to relax the instant we have information that a negotiation is
likely to be opened, and that they may at any time unnerve our arm by a
proposition to negotiate. Therefore, if he had before been against this
measure, he should now be in favor of it, because, if it had no other
good effect, it would convince the government with which we are about to
treat, that the same vigorous measures which have produced this
negotiation will still be continued, and that though we are treating for
peace, we are preparing for war, and that we are determined to do
ourselves justice, if they refuse to do us justice. For these reasons he
hoped the bill would pass.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, that considering how great a favorite this measure
had been of its partial parents, it was the most unlucky child that ever
showed its face in the House. It had scarcely seen the light at the last
session, when it was lost in the short passage from its nursery in the
committee to the House, because those who were most interested in its
preservation, by accident, did not happen to vote for it. Another
accident of the same nature prevented its passage when it was again
attempted in the same session. At the interval of a year, the same ill
fortune seemed to pursue this unlucky bantling. It had scarcely taken
its first step into existence when the same forgetfulness seemed to
seize all those who had the care of it. Again, it was lost in the
committee; again it accidentally expired; and all the efforts to revive
it, he believed, would be in vain. Mr. L. then went into a history of
the bill to show that it was lost, not by accident, but because a
majority were opposed to it.

Mr. L. said, he understood that France proposes to receive a Minister
from this country on the very terms upon which only the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES has heretofore said he would ever send one. It was said to
be improper to recede from the ground we have taken on this account,
because the French may not be sincere. He had heard no such idea
suggested, and gentlemen certainly do wrong in imputing motives to
others without foundation. But when gentlemen come to the merits of the
bill, they touch them very lightly. They tell you it is part of our
general system of defence. Is this the case? How is it to operate? It is
to operate as a measure of aggression, not of preservation, or
self-defence; and though he was perfectly willing to preserve our
present ground, he did not wish to progress in any measures of
hostility, especially when so little advantage can be derived from it as
is proposed by this bill.

Mr. DANA said that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in his Message
to both Houses of the 21st of June last, declared, "that he would never
send another Minister to France until he had assurances that he would be
received as the Minister of a great, free, and powerful nation." The
character of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES for integrity and
political fortitude, is well known and established, and that character
is pledged for an adherence to the declaration above recited. Nor had he
any idea of his receding from it. With a knowledge of this fact, we are
to inquire what is the purport of the information which has been given
to this House of a Minister having been appointed to negotiate with the
French Republic. For his own part he did not consider the French
Government sincere; and he was authorized to think so by the declaration
of this House in answer to the PRESIDENT'S Speech. Nor did he think the
PRESIDENT believed them to be sincere, and he was authorized in thinking
so, from his communication to both Houses at the opening of the session.
How, then, is the nomination of a Minister to be understood? It was to
be understood in the same light in which we used to appoint
Commissioners during our Revolutionary war, who were sent to Europe to
treat with Great Britain long before we expected she would be willing to
treat for peace; but they were possessed of eventual authority. So, in
the present case, the authority proposed to be given to our Minister at
the Hague, is only to be an eventual authority, that when he receives
sufficient evidence of the sincerity of the French Government, he may
proceed to treat with them. Nor did he believe that the Senate possessed
any document informing them that the PRESIDENT has already received
these assurances.

[Mr. D. here read extracts from the PRESIDENT'S Address to both Houses,
from the address of this House in answer to it, and from his reply; in
which the PRESIDENT states he can have no confidence in the sincerity of
the French Government, while the decree which condemns our vessels as
prizes, on account of having articles of British growth or manufacture
on board, is in force.]

We know, said Mr. D., that this decree is, however, yet in force; and
yet gentlemen pretend to say that the nomination which has taken place
is a proof that the PRESIDENT has now some reliance on the sincerity of
the French Government; whereas it is nothing more than a conditional
appointment, such as he had already stated. No gentleman will hazard his
political sagacity by saying, a negotiation is likely to take place
whilst that decree is in existence; nor can any gentleman be found who
will apologize for it, if it is so atrocious that its repeal must be an
indispensable preliminary to any negotiation which may take place.
Believing this nomination, therefore, to be nothing more than the naming
of a person to treat with the French Government when it shall condescend
to do us justice, the arguments of gentlemen built upon it fall to the
ground. And if they attend to the declaration of this House, in the
address already alluded to, they will find that we ought to advance in
our defensive measures instead of receding, or even remaining
stationary.

Mr. NICHOLAS supposed during the first half of the speech, of the
gentleman who had just sat down, that he meant to vote against this
bill, for he could not have supposed that he had quoted the PRESIDENT'S
Message to Congress, in June last, for the purpose of making a
declaration such as he has made with respect to it. He supposes that the
PRESIDENT has received no assurances from the French Republic that our
Minister will be received, though he has heretofore said he never would
send a Minister until he had assurances he would be properly received;
but that he has appointed a Minister to wait, as it were, at the door of
France, for a declaration that he will be properly received. And he
supposes that the declaration of the PRESIDENT will in this way be
satisfied. Mr. N. believed, if the PRESIDENT has appointed a Minister,
he will be received, because he did not believe he would have appointed
him until he had good assurances that this would be the case; or, if he
has, that he has certainly forgotten his declaration.

The gentleman last up had made use of a very extraordinary argument. He
says the French nation is governed by different principles from any
other. When we entreat them to be at peace, he says, they insult us; but
when we give them cause to wage eternal war against us, they become
humble and submissive. Mr. N. believed that this was not the first time
that such measures have had this tendency; but it is the first time it
has been acknowledged that the measure alluded to (the publication of
the despatches containing the unauthorized negotiations of X, Y, and Z,
he supposed was meant) was calculated to produce these direful effects.
He did fear they were intended to have these mischievous consequences;
but he hoped and believed that their being so notorious and palpable
have been the means of defeating the intention, and of saving the nation
from war, as it showed that the Government of this country had no desire
to be at peace. The French saw that a war between the United States and
them would have been a war of passion, in which they could have had no
possible interest, and which would, above all other things, have proved
agreeable to their enemy. They saw that there was a party in this
country who wished for this state of things, and he believed the
extremity to which things had been carried has defeated the object in
view. I do believe, said Mr. N., that France is now disposed to make
peace; that she is calling upon us to enter into negotiation, in order
that the party in this country who are desirous of war may have no
pretext for carrying their wishes into effect.

Mr. N. was astonished, that after a Minister of respectable character, a
Minister chosen by the PRESIDENT, and who declared he accepted of the
employment from a desire to support his administration, being well
acquainted with the disposition of France, from his having resided there
a considerable time--has asserted that, previous to their knowledge of
the publication of the negotiations of X, Y, and Z, in this country, the
French Government were desirous of negotiating a peace; that after
having rejected two of our Ministers, and retained a third, the
resentments appeared to be satisfied; and that, though, after they had
received information of the publication of these despatches, their
displeasure was for a while excited, yet before Mr. Gerry left France,
the same disposition for peace had returned; though, from the
disposition which appeared in this country, they were doubtful how their
overtures would be received. And after we have now proofs that they have
made overtures, in conformity to the sentiments exhibited in Mr. Gerry's
despatches, it was astonishing, he said, that gentlemen should ascribe
this offer to negotiate to the effect which the small force we raised
has had upon them--a force which could not possibly have availed any
thing against such a force as it might be expected would be sent against
us, if it was the purpose of France to invade this country.

Mr. RUTLEDGE observed, that the effect of the measures which were taken
at the two last sessions of Congress have been so different from what
was predicted by the gentleman from Virginia that he was no longer
inclined to give credit to his predictions. He has constantly been
prophesying, but time and experience have shown his prophesies to be
wholly unfounded. It was doubtless in the recollection of the House,
that that gentleman thought it would be weak to rely upon a navy; he
thought and said that many of the measures formerly taken would plunge
the country in war, by causing a declaration of war on the part of
France. The gentleman apologized for the length of his speeches, because
he thought the measures of the last importance; and that if they were
adopted, the scabbard would be thrown away, and it would not be in our
power to resume it. But, instead of war, it is now found these measures
have obtained for us peace--at least gentlemen say so. The gentleman
from Virginia now predicts we shall have peace; but as all the former
predictions of that gentleman have fallen to the ground, he trusted a
majority of this House will not be inclined to give credit to his
present prediction.

Much had been said about the diplomatic skill of France; and he thought
her present conduct more deserving of this epithet than any of her
former measures with respect to this country. Let gentlemen review the
conduct of that country. She first attempted to bully us; but finding
that we were not to be frightened, her next object was to obtain delay,
in order to afford time for the spirit which had been roused by her
injuries, to spend its force. When our Minister, Mr. Pinckney, first
arrived in France, he was assured he would be received; but the French
had an agent in this country feeling the pulse of the people, and
finding that there existed a great deal of French mania, and a party
upon whom they could rely, the French Government refused to receive our
Minister. This country, still desirous of preserving peace, sent three
Commissioners. What was then the conduct of the French Government? Our
Ministers remained for months at Paris an unique spectacle, waiting in
vain to be received. France has endeavored to palsy our Government--to
produce delay--to give time for that noble spirit which has done so much
honor to our country to spend itself. When she finds that our efforts to
negotiate having failed, we buckled on our armor, and were determined to
resist her injustice, the French Secretary of Legation at the Hague is
directed to have some conversation with our Minister there; and assure
him, notwithstanding this country had done acts enough to justify the
most offensive measures, that if he will send another Minister to
France, he would be received as an agent of a great, independent, and
powerful nation. Gentlemen catch at this; but what is it but an attempt
to arrest the arm of the Government of this country, just when it was
about to strike a blow? And yet gentlemen are the dupes of this
diplomatic skill.

Mr. LIVINGSTON was not surprised that gentlemen who had always been the
advocates of war, at this critical moment, when all the horrors of peace
stare them in the face, should seize every opportunity of postponing
that dreaded event by questioning the sincerity of the offer to
negotiate. [Mr. RUTLEDGE asked whether this had been done? The SPEAKER
answered in the negative.] From those gentlemen this was naturally to
have been expected, and he therefore excused their vexation and dismay.
But Mr. L. said he was not a little astonished that others, who at least
professed an attachment to peace, should betray such evident anxiety and
uneasiness at its approach. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
RUTLEDGE) has said that he wishes for peace; that no class of men are
more exposed than his constituents, and that he himself would be a great
sufferer by war. Such wishes and such motives he was however inclined to
believe would have prompted language very different from that which had
just been heard. A gentleman really desirous of peace would not, he
should have supposed, travel out of the argument to pronounce philippics
against those with whom we were treating, or to question the sincerity
of overtures which were made in the mode we ourselves had prescribed.

He would not ask gentlemen who pronounce so decisively on the subject;
who tell us that no reliance is to be placed in French professions; that
they promise only to betray; that, unlike all other nations, they treat
us with disdain when we ask for peace, but like spaniels, crouch and
fawn upon us when we use them ill, whether they had calculated the
consequences of their doctrine? That would be demanding more from them
than their conduct had given him a right to expect; but he would ask
whether they had attended to dates, when they arrogated to their
measures the credit of producing the present disposition for peace in
the Government of France? Let it be remembered, said Mr. L., that the
most earnest and pressing solicitations for an accommodation were
expressed to Mr. Gerry; that he was repeatedly urged to negotiate a
treaty, which it was more than intimated he might have on his own terms;
and that, after his repeated refusals to treat, a Minister was
designated to carry these pacific intentions to America--and all this
before any account of those measures on which gentlemen so much pride
themselves had arrived in France. Let it not be forgotten, too, that
when the account of these measures did arrive, so far from having a
beneficial effect, they were very near producing the one for which
gentlemen now tell us they were intended, and for which they were indeed
admirably calculated--that of provoking on the part of France, a
declaration which could not be obtained here. Mr. Gerry very
expressively gives us these important facts. He states the evident
desire to accommodate before the arrival of the despatches, and the turn
which their contents gave to the negotiation. The discussion was turned
to unimportant points; the design of sending a Minister was
relinquished; and every thing showed a design to protract the business,
until it could be ascertained whether the United States were desirous of
peace, or would receive a Minister if he should be sent. In this state
of things, Mr. Gerry received orders to return. All further intercourse
with France then ceased, until the PRESIDENT, by his Message to this
House, declared the terms on which alone he would send a Minister to
France. No sooner were these terms known, than the assurance is sent in
the very words prescribed by the PRESIDENT, accompanied by expressions
of an earnest desire to treat. In all this history, subsequent to the
departure of Messrs. Pinckney and Marshall, he thought an evident desire
had been shown for an accommodation, the sincerity of which he believed
it was our duty to test--not by reproachful speeches and hostile
measures, but by meeting their overtures for negotiation in good faith;
and while we showed our desire for peace, not to trust too much to our
wishes, but retain every measure of defence.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) had mentioned delay.
France, he said, always conquered by producing delays. This he thought
not a very applicable expression to the rapidity with which gentlemen
traced their conquests. But on this occasion it was particularly
unfortunate. It appears that the overtures which have now been acted
upon were communicated by the Minister for Foreign Relations at Paris,
to Mr. Pichon at the Hague, and by him to Mr. Murray, on the 28th of
September; and we hear nothing of them until the close of February. He
did not know when the communication was received here; but there was at
least a probability, from the date, that it was before the opening of
the session; before the adoption of all the expensive measures we have
undertaken; before the loan was opened at eight per cent.; before the
intemperate commentary was written on Mr. Gerry's despatches, with which
we have been favored by the Secretary of State. Let gentlemen compare
the language of that singular State paper with these proposals made to
Mr. Murray; let them examine the respective dates, and then let them
talk to us of delay.

Mr. SHEPARD could not think, with the gentleman from New York, that
France is serious in her proposals to negotiate; he believed she meant
to deceive us; and sooner than be deceived by them, he would fight the
ungodly nation. After some other observations, he sat down, with hoping
the question would be taken.

The question was put on agreeing to the report of the Committee of the
Whole, and carried--52 to 48, as follows:

      YEAS.--George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
      Richard Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, John
      Chapman, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne,
      Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson,
      George Dent, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, William
      Findlay, John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert
      Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, William Barry
      Grove, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N.
      Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward
      Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon,
      Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith,
      William Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Peleg Sprague,
      Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram
      Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
      Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

      NAYS.--John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard,
      Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher
      G. Champlin, James Cochran, Wm. Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John
      Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight
      Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich,
      William Gordon, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper,
      Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Jas.
      H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir,
      William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac
      Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Read, John Rutledge, jr.,
      James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas
      Sinnickson, Nathaniel Smith, George Thatcher, Richard
      Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van
      Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, and John Williams.

The second section was then amended by adding to it the usual enacting
clause; but after some observations against passing it by Mr. SEWALL,
since the first section had been stricken out on the motion for its
going to a third reading, it was negatived. And so the bill was
rejected.


_Expulsion of Matthew Lyon._

Mr. BAYARD proposed the following resolution to the House:

      "_Resolved_, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House,
      having been convicted of being a notorious and seditious
      person, and of a depraved mind, and wicked and diabolical
      disposition; and of wickedly, deceitfully, and maliciously,
      contriving to defame the Government of the United States;
      and having, with intent and design to defame the Government
      of the United States, and John Adams, the PRESIDENT OF THE
      UNITED STATES, and to bring the said Government and
      PRESIDENT into contempt and disrepute, and with intent and
      design to excite against the said Government and PRESIDENT
      the hatred of the good people of the United States, and to
      stir up sedition in the United States--wickedly, knowingly,
      and maliciously, written and published certain scandalous
      and seditious writings, or libels, be therefor expelled
      this House."

Mr. B. said he had only to remark that this resolution is copied from
the record of the trial, which he had in his possession.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, if this had been a candid statement of the business,
he should have been willing to have come to an immediate vote upon it;
but words are introduced into this resolution (which are words of course
in every indictment) which do not particularly belong to this offence,
and the truth of which is never inquired into upon a trial. As he wished
the nature of the offence to be clearly stated, he hoped the motion
would lie for the present.

Mr. BAYARD observed he had already said the terms used are copied from
the record itself, and he did not think the gentleman from Virginia had
been wiser than the law. He had himself no doubt that all the charges on
the record are pertinent to the subject; if not, it would be extremely
improper to introduce them. They are charges upon which a jury of the
country have decided.

Mr. NICHOLAS appealed to the gentleman from Delaware, and to all other
gentlemen of the law who heard him, whether the words here used are not
the mere form of the indictment, and unconnected with the act here
charged. He moved to adjourn, which motion was carried without a
division.


FRIDAY, February 22.

_Alien and Sedition Laws._

Mr. BARD presented several petitions and remonstrances from 1,487
inhabitants of the county of Franklin, in Pennsylvania, praying for the
repeal of the alien and sedition laws; which having been read,

Mr. BARD moved to have this petition referred as usual.

Mr. HARPER inquired whether it would be in order to strike out a part of
this petition. On being answered in the negative by the SPEAKER, Mr. H.
said, he was always unwilling to object to the reference of petitions;
but, on this occasion he could not help protesting against an atrocious
libel contained in these petitions against the courts and juries of this
country. Some time ago a great deal had been said on the subject of
courts and juries in this House, and now we find the sentiments, as many
others have been, reverberated in the form of petitions. It is here
said, "that the sedition law had, in its execution, been used as a means
of private vengeance, personal enmity, and party resentment." A charge
so unjustifiable, and so untrue, upon the courts and juries of this
country, he could not suffer to be referred without his protest.

Mr. GALLATIN observed, that the reference of these petitions is objected
to, on account of what the gentleman from South Carolina calls a libel,
which makes a part of these petitions. This, said Mr. G., is going upon
the ground, which the greatest enemies of these laws have barely
suggested might be taken, but which they thought scarcely possible, viz:
that the right of petitioning might next be restricted, since the
liberty of writing and speaking on the measures of Government was by law
restricted: and now, taking it for granted, that the allegation
contained in these petitions is untrue, the gentleman from South
Carolina wishes to refuse these petitions a reference, without examining
whether it is true or not. The petitioners say that the sedition law has
been carried into effect under the operation of party spirit and
personal revenge. The gentleman says that this is not true; but he does
not want to have the allegation examined, in order to discover whether
it be true or not, but to dismiss the subject at once; to tell the
people, "You shall not be permitted to lay your petitions before us, if
you dare to say that laws are carried into operation to gratify party
spirit or private revenge, (for nothing is said of courts and juries,)
if they contain such allegations, we will reject your petitions." Mr. G.
hoped, on examination of the fact, the House would be convinced that
though the charge is not a libel, that it is at least a gross mistake;
that no such personal enmity, party spirit, or private revenge, has
taken place, either in the commencement of any prosecution under this
law, or in any decision which has taken place. But thus to object to the
reference of petitions, would be to say that we have the power of
defining the nature of petitions; that they may apply to this and that
object, but that there are certain points which the people may not
touch. He wished to know whether the people have not a right to say, if
they choose, that the administration of justice is corrupt? and whether,
if they do say so, the fact ought not to be inquired into? It certainly
ought, and he was surprised to hear such an objection made. It must have
arisen, because these petitions are grating to the feelings of gentlemen
who are favorable to these laws. He hoped, on recollection, that the
reference of petitions does not imply an approbation of the sentiments
contained in them, that the gentleman from South Carolina would permit
these petitions to be referred.

Mr. HARPER was not surprised that the gentleman from Pennsylvania should
defend these petitions, for reasons which every man must know. What he
has said upon the subject is no more than a repetition of some things
which we have before heard. He agreed that, when grievances are
complained of, they ought to be examined; and if the people were to
complain of a maladministration of justice, the fact ought to be
inquired into; but when the repeal of a law is prayed for, it certainly
cannot be proper for petitioners to go into charges against the
administration of courts and juries, by saying that prosecutions are
carried on under party malice and party revenge. To do this is to strike
at the vitals of our constitution. The gentleman from Pennsylvania likes
this, perhaps, from party motives, but he ought to remember that it is
an instrument which will cut both ways; and the use of which, if he has
any respect for the laws and rights of his country, he may live to
regret having countenanced. Mr. H. said, if in order, he would move to
refer this part of the memorial to a select committee, with a view of
inquiring into the subject-matter, and report their opinion thereon to
the House.

The SPEAKER declared such a motion out of order; and, after some
observations from Mr. NICHOLAS, in which he said the gentleman from
South Carolina had answered himself, by allowing the propriety of a
reference at all; and observed, if because these petitions complained of
the administration of one part of our Government (which, however, he did
not allow they do) they were to be rejected, it might be expected that,
hereafter, no petition would be received that complained of the
maladministration of any department of the Government.

The reference was carried, there being 55 votes for it.

Mr. GALLATIN presented petitions from six hundred and seventy-eight
inhabitants of Chester County, praying for the repeal of the alien and
sedition laws, in the same words with those presented yesterday.


_On expelling Matthew Lyon._

Mr. BAYARD called up for consideration the following resolution, which
he had laid upon the table a day or two ago:

The resolution having been read, Mr. B. presented to the House a copy of
the record of Mr. Lyon's trial, which was read by the Clerk, after
which,

Mr. B. observed, it would not be necessary to trouble the House with
many observations in support of this resolution. The facts upon which
the resolution is founded, are proved to be incontrovertibly true, by
the record which had just been read. The only question, therefore,
before the House was, as to the consequence of the fact, or whether the
crime of which the member in question had been convicted, is a
sufficient cause for expulsion. Mr. B. referred the House to that
clause of the constitution which gives the House the power of expulsion.
The power, said he, is unlimited. The House has the power to expel a
member for any crime, or for any cause, which, in their discretion, they
conceive has rendered him unfit to remain a member of the body. Perhaps
some gentlemen may think that it is improper for the House to take
notice of acts done by its members out of the House, but he believed the
fallacy of such a doctrine would be easily seen. It was certainly
possible, and might, therefore, be imagined, that a member of this
House, might be guilty of murder, treason, perjury, or other infamous
crime, and would it be asserted that a man, defiled by crimes of this
kind, ought to be suffered to represent a portion of the people of the
United States in the National Legislature? He trusted that no gentleman,
who valued reputation, would contend for such a point. The question,
then is, said Mr. B., whether the act in question is an act of that
description, the commission of which ought to induce the House to expel
the convicted member? In his opinion, the crime was of the first
political magnitude. A crime not only affecting the members of this
House, but the whole community, as its consequences go to the subversion
of the Government. This Government, said Mr. B., depends for its
existence upon the good will of the people. That good will is maintained
by their good opinion. But, how is that good opinion to be preserved, if
wicked and unprincipled men, men of inordinate and desperate ambition,
are allowed to state facts to the people which are not true, which they
know at the time to be false, and which are stated with the criminal
intention of bringing the Government into disrepute among the people.
This was falsely and deceitfully stealing the public opinion; it was a
felony of the worst and most dangerous nature. The member from Vermont
has been convicted of doing this, with a view of exciting the hatred of
the people against the PRESIDENT and Senate, and of stirring up sedition
in the country. This, in his opinion, was a crime of the greatest
magnitude, since it is all-important that the channel by which
information is conveyed to the people should be preserved as pure as
possible; for, if men are allowed to state things as facts, which they
know to be false, what will be the consequence? However upright the
Government, or however correct the First Magistrate may be, the hatred
of the people may be excited against them by means of false information;
and when a foreign foe, or domestic traitors, join the standard of
rebellion, the best constitution and government may be subverted.
Therefore, that falsehood which deprives men of the means of forming a
true judgment of public affairs, in this country, where the Government
is elective, is a crime of the first magnitude. The member from Vermont
has been convicted, under aggravated circumstances. He was on this floor
when the law, against which he has offended, was passed. He, therefore,
was well acquainted with the law; yet, with this knowledge, he has
falsely, scandalously and maliciously, defamed the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, with a view of exciting hatred, and stirring up sedition.
These facts are recorded and incontrovertible; and he conceived it would
be out of order to call them in question.

Mr. B. concluded with appealing to the candor and honor which he
expected to find in the House, whether a member, the malice of whose
heart, and the falsehood of whose pen, stood recorded; who had, from the
worst and basest motives, violated a law which he had himself assisted
to make, was fit to hold a seat in that House. Will any one say that a
man who does not keep the laws ought to be allowed to make them?
Certainly, nothing was more repugnant to principle and propriety; and,
as he conceived the member from Vermont was notoriously and exemplarily
guilty in this respect, an obligation rested on the House to expel him.
Mr. B. said he brought forward this resolution from a sense only of
public duty, from a strong feeling for national character. He knew but
little, and should be happy if it were less, of the member who was the
object of it. He could not be suspected of having been induced to the
step he had taken by the miserable gratification of offering violence to
the feelings of the member. He believed that nothing he had said, nor
any thing which could be said, would awaken a single feeling. His
sensations were of another sort, and excited in another manner. Mr. B.
conceived he had done his duty, and if the House refused to purify
itself by the expulsion of the member, it was a satisfaction to him to
reflect that it would appear to the world that he had no share in the
disgrace.

Mr. NICHOLAS had hoped that the gentleman from Delaware would have shown
to the House something in this transaction which made the character of
the member alluded to so infamous as to have rendered him unfit to hold
a seat in this House. He should have thought that, after a member of
this House had suffered so severely as the member from Vermont has
suffered by fine and imprisonment, it would have been thought necessary
to go into a consideration of the nature of the offence of which he is
said to have been guilty, and to have shown that the guilt attaching to
him was such as to defile the characters of the rest of the members to
sit with him, before a vote of expulsion was taken. Indeed, Mr. N. had
supposed that there had been but one opinion on this subject, and that
no attempt would have been made to have inflicted a second punishment.
The gentleman from Delaware, Mr. N. said, had confined himself in his
declaration about this offence, to its being an offence against one of
the laws of the United States, without showing the House what the
offence was, or wishing them to form a judgment upon it.

Mr. N. was surprised at this second prosecution, because, if gentlemen
will speak candidly according to the opinions which they formerly
delivered in justification of the law, they will acknowledge that the
whole of the charges brought against the member from Vermont ought not
to have been inquired into under the sedition law; since two of the
counts contained in the indictment are mere matters of opinion, not
containing the least suggestion of fact; and the third rests so much on
matter of opinion, that it is impossible, according to a sound
construction of the law, for any guilt to be incurred by the act.

Mr. N. wished the House to attend to the nature of the charges exhibited
against the member from Vermont, and to say whether they were not of
such a nature as to render it difficult to say whether they are well
founded, and, if they are well founded, then they are innocent. In the
record from which he had copied the charges, there are three counts; two
of them are founded on extracts taken from a letter, called "Barlow's
Letter;" the third is for sentiments contained in a letter of the
member's own writing. The two first turn on mere matters of opinion. Mr.
N. read the counts as follows:

      "The misunderstanding between the two Governments has
      become extremely alarming, confidence is completely
      destroyed, mistrusts, jealousy, and a disposition to a
      wrong attribution of motives, are so apparent as to require
      the utmost caution in every word and action that are to
      come before your Executive--I mean if your object is to
      avoid hostilities. Had this truth been understood with you
      before the recall of Monroe, before the coming and second
      coming of Pinckney; had it guided the pens that wrote the
      bullying Speech of your President, and stupid answer of
      your Senate, at the opening of Congress in November last, I
      should probably have had no occasion to address you this
      letter. But we found him borrowing the language of Great
      Britain, and telling the world that, although he should
      succeed in treating with the French, there was no
      dependence to be placed on any of their engagements; that
      their religion and morality were at an end; that they had
      turned pirates and plunderers; and it would be necessary to
      be perpetually armed against them, though they are at
      peace. We wondered that the answer of both Houses had not
      been an order to send him to a mad-house. Instead of this,
      the Senate had echoed the Speech with more servility than
      ever George III. experienced from either House of
      Parliament.

      "As to the Executive, when I shall see the efforts of that
      power bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness,
      and accommodation of the people, that Executive shall have
      my zealous and uniform support. But, when I see every
      consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a
      continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for
      ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, or selfish avarice;
      when I shall behold men of real merit daily turned out of
      office for no other cause but independence of sentiment;
      when I shall see men of firmness, merit, years, abilities,
      and experience, discarded on their application for office,
      for fear they possess that independence; and men of
      meanness preferred for the ease with which they take up and
      advocate opinions, the consequence of which they know but
      little of; when I shall see the sacred name of religion
      employed as a State engine to make mankind hate and
      persecute one another, I shall not be their humble
      advocate."

The two first counts contain the opinions of the writer on public and
notorious acts. No act is charged upon the PRESIDENT and Senate which is
not notorious. It is not an attempt to impose upon the world a belief of
facts which do not exist. He called upon gentlemen of the law and others
to say whether this law was ever intended to extend to matters of
opinion. He was astonished that a record of this kind should ever come
from a court of the United States. The law declares that the
publications which it proposes to punish, shall be false and scandalous.
Do gentlemen say opinions can be false which do not contain matter of
fact? Another part of the law gives to the party accused the privilege
of giving the truth of the fact charged in evidence; but it is
impossible that this can be done, where the matter charged consists of
mere opinion; and juries could not possibly say whether an opinion be
true or false. They can only determine whether or not it is their own
opinion.

If a man is to be subject to a prosecution for his opinions, what will
be the consequence? We are, said Mr. N., sent here to form an opinion,
and, when we return home, we are expected to deliver that opinion to our
constituents: but, if the propriety of our opinions are not to be judged
of by ourselves, but by others, what will become of us? No man will be
safe; for, though he may have formed his opinion as correctly as
possible, if twelve men are to sit upon it, and, if it should not happen
to be their opinion, or if they should not believe it to be his upon
whom it is charged, he will be liable to a severe fine and imprisonment.
Is it proper, Mr. N. asked, for legislators to be placed on this ground?
Or, will gentlemen say it was their intention to place themselves in
this situation? They certainly will not; for who would consent to sit
here, or of what use would it be, under such conditions?

The third count is somewhat of a different nature. Mr. N. said, in
speaking on this subject, he was not giving his own opinion. If he were
to give it, he should say he had no foundation for the fact here stated.
There is no mode, however, of ascertaining whether or not it was the
opinion of the member from Vermont, and if it were his opinion, there
being no mode of determining whether the opinion is correct or
otherwise, it was impossible to act upon it.

With respect to the first part of the third count, which speaks of
"every consideration of the public welfare being swallowed up in a
continual grasp of power, &c.," he supposed it would be agreed that it
was an expression of the affection of the mind--an opinion upon the
disposition discovered by actions. That part of it which relates to "men
of real merit being turned out of office for no other cause but
independence of sentiment, &c.," suggests a fact, but if this was his
opinion, it is a matter so much connected with opinion, as to be
scarcely distinguishable from it. And shall we be told, said Mr. N.,
that a member ought to be banished from his seat for uttering a
sentiment of this kind, after having been told by the gentleman from
Delaware, and others, that it was a complete disqualification for office
for a man to hold a different political opinion from that of the
Executive? He trusted gentlemen could not seriously think so. For, since
if the fact were true, and the member from Vermont had adduced (as he
believed he might have done) two or three instances of men being turned
out of office merely on account of their political opinions, still the
jury might have asked, "how do you know that the men displaced possessed
superior talents to those who succeeded them?" This, though true, could
not be proved, therefore the member from Vermont could not have availed
himself of the advantage held out by the law. Gentlemen may say this is
not necessary, as this law goes to many offences not capable of this
proof; they may say that the British law on this subject goes to many
others. But our law is not the same with the British law; there, though
the libel be true, it is not less a libel, which is not the case under
our law, which is an important distinction.

It was clear, Mr. N. said, that such parts of the counts as went to
insinuate fact, were so connected with opinion, that it was impossible
to separate them. It could not be said that the jury were competent to
decide upon the truth of the case. The decision of twelve honest men on
a point of fact, is, perhaps, the best security that can be devised for
the security of justice; but if a man is to be convicted because his
opinions and those of a jury are at variance, there is an end to all
security. Men's opinions are as various as their faces, and the truth or
falsehood of those opinions are not fit subjects for the decision of a
jury.

Upon what ground does the member from Vermont stand? He is a
representative of the people; and gentlemen could not shut their eyes
against a notorious fact, viz: that the constituents of this member,
with a full knowledge of this prosecution, have re-elected him; and if
the people of Vermont choose to have a person possessing these opinions
to represent them, who have a right to say they shall not? Indeed, if
they are to be represented at all, they must be represented by the man
whom they choose to elect.

The gentleman from Delaware had said, that all the offences of Mr. LYON
were greatly aggravated from his being a member of this House. Mr. N.
was of a different opinion. He thought it incumbent on a Representative
to disclose his opinions on public affairs to his constituents; and this
disclosure will become more necessary, in proportion as such opinions
may be offensive to the administrators of the Government; as, when all
goes on smoothly and well, there will be no necessity for calling the
attention of the people to public concerns.

The gentleman has also said, that it would be out of order to contest
the truth of any thing contained in this record. He thought
differently, and that if it was proper to act upon the subject at all,
it would be proper to assign a day to have a fair hearing of the
business, to enable the House to judge of the facts. For gentlemen will
not say, that courts and juries are so infallible, that there is no case
in which the decision of a court ought to be revised. If the member from
Vermont should think it necessary to demand this investigation, the
House ought to submit to it.

There was something in that record, Mr. N. said, which was very singular
indeed; something which requires investigation; for unless the fact is
different from what his information made it, a most extraordinary
circumstance was connected with the third count. It will be seen, from
the showing of the record, that the letter upon which the charge is
founded, was written before the passage of the law on which the offence
was tried. If he was not misinformed, no evidence was adduced in court
to show that Mr. LYON did any act subsequent to the writing of his
letter in the publication, and that though the thing appeared in print
after the law took its effect, all that was done by the writer was done
before the law was passed. He thought, therefore, before the House acted
upon this subject, an inquiry ought to be had upon it. He did not know
what were the wishes of the member from Vermont himself on this subject;
he had not put the question to him, because he thought there was no
offence contained in the record of which the House ought to take notice.
He would say farther, that believing most religiously that the law
against which the member from Vermont is said to have offended, is a
violation of the constitution of this country, he could not without a
breach of his oath, do any act to punish a breach of that law.

Mr. LYON said, he did expect that if he was to have had a second trial,
he should have been at liberty to have adduced the evidence upon which a
jury had already decided. Gentlemen who have been able to obtain a copy
of the record, which he, notwithstanding all his earnest desires to
obtain it, had not been able to procure, might also have obtained a copy
of the testimony on which this judgment was founded.

Mr. L. thought he had received an unjust trial and a hard sentence. He
said unjust, because he was frowned upon by the Judge in a very abrupt
manner when he challenged two of the jury, which he had a right to do by
a law of the State. The Judge answered me, said Mr. L., "You are
unacquainted with the laws of the State." Mr. L. observed that there is
a law in the State of Vermont for punishing persons who speak against
the public authorities, which gives to the accused the privilege of
challenging six of his jury. This privilege, said Mr. L., I was denied,
exclusive of the political packing of the jury who tried me. This is the
kind of treatment I have received: but I shall submit to the decision of
the House without occupying their time on my account, further than my
enemies are desirous of so occupying it.

Mr. ALLEN said, nothing but the respect which he entertained for the
character who presided at the trial of the member from Vermont would
have drawn him from his seat on that occasion. But if he understood the
member from Vermont, he said he was frowned upon by the court when he
challenged two of his jury, and having been present at the trial, he was
able to speak to that fact. He understood the member to make a
challenge, and the Judge told him he did not know the laws of Vermont;
but so far from any harshness being used towards the member, he must say
he never saw a trial more fairly conducted. He thought it did honor to
Judge Paterson, who presided. When the member persisted in his opinion,
that a law of the State gave him a right to challenge his jury, the
Judge replied, "if that was the law, it would require consideration;"
and he inquired of the district judge if that was the law, who said it
was not. As to the member's being precipitately tried, [Mr. LYON
observed, he did say so,] if ever there was a case deliberately tried,
or in which unexampled indulgence was shown to the accused, it was this.

The member from Vermont had spoken of the jury being packed. He had seen
this asserted in the papers, and the public ought to be informed that
the charge is wholly untrue. The member from Vermont must know it is
untrue. The jury was drawn from the boxes as is usual, in consequence of
an order made by the court in May, which pointed out the particular
towns from whence the jury were to be drawn. Mr. A. concluded by saying,
he was sorry to find any man base enough to attack the gentleman who
presided on this trial, as he believed his conduct to be unimpeachable.

Mr. BAYARD said, considering the lateness of the hour, he should limit
his reply to a few observations. He did not know what would bind the
gentleman from Virginia; he denies the obligation of the law, and the
credibility of the record. He could not expect, therefore, that he would
be bound by the obligation of reason.

The gentleman from Virginia, in his defence of the member from Vermont,
has gone upon the ground that mere matter of opinion cannot be construed
into a libel. He begged leave to differ from that opinion, for which
there was not the least ground. Four things, Mr. B. said, are necessary
to constitute a crime under the law in question: it is necessary that a
publication should be seditious, false, scandalous, and malicious. When
these four things appear, whether the publication consists in the
assertion of matter of opinion, or matter of fact, it will be within the
law, which makes no discrimination on the subject.

Mr. B. did not think it altogether in order to question in this place
the regularity of the proceedings of a court of justice. According to
the organization of this Government, the powers of it are distributed,
and the Judiciary in its department is as sovereign as the Legislature;
and it is as improper for the Legislature to question the proceedings of
a court as it would be for a court in common cases, to question the
obligation of a law. What has the fact been? The judgment of a court has
decided, on the verdict of a jury given upon oath, that this case was
within the law; and, after a judicial determination, is it for a member
of this House to say that the case was not within the law?

But Mr. B. could conceive no idea more groundless than that of the
gentleman from Virginia, that mere matters of opinion are not grounds of
charges under this law. This the gentleman had made his _alpha_ and
_omega_. He wished to know how a distinction was to be made on this
subject? If an opinion upon a fact be expressed, and that opinion is
false, scandalous, and malicious, ought it not to be subject to
prosecution? Does the gentleman say opinions cannot be false? Mr. B.
said, he would put a case to the gentleman from Virginia, without any
intention of personal reflection, but merely for the sake of the
argument. Suppose any person were to say, that in _his opinion_, that
gentleman was a _rogue_, or any other _opinion_ casting a gross
imputation, would the offence be less, because he had, instead of saying
expressly he was a rogue, merely given it as his opinion? But if the
gentleman insisted opinions could not be false, how would he get rid of
the conclusion? This, Mr. B. conceived, might be sufficient to show that
opinions may be false. Or, suppose a man were to say that, in his
opinion, another was a traitor, ought he not to be punished as severely
as if he had asserted the thing as a fact? The intention and wisdom of
this law was, Mr. B. said, to caution men to be guarded in the
publication of their opinions; since, by the expression of false
opinions the minds of the people may be alienated from their Government.
Suppose, for instance, that the gentleman from Virginia, or the member
from Vermont, were to harangue the people, and say, in their _opinion_,
this law is unconstitutional, and, therefore, not binding; that it ought
not to be obeyed, but opposed by force; that it was made by men grasping
after power, in defiance of the best interests of their country, in
order to answer their own private views. Although this all might be mere
matter of opinion, would it not come within the meaning of the law in
question? No man on earth, Mr. B. said, would be more opposed to any
measure for restraining the expression of honest and well-intentioned
opinions, than himself. All that this law does, is to restrain false,
malicious, and scandalous opinions. And will the gentleman from Virginia
say, that the good of the country, or its liberty, will be promoted by
indulging in an expression of what is false, scandalous, and malicious?
Could this be liberty? He thought not. Every man, under this law, has
the liberty of publishing what he pleases, taking the responsibility
upon himself for the truth of what he writes. If he writes only what is
true, he is not liable to punishment; if what is false, and that
maliciously, it is only reasonable he should be punished for his
falsehood and malice.

Suppose a common case, that a man were to say that, in his opinion,
another was insolvent, a bankrupt, or a thief, would he not be
answerable for this opinion? He certainly would. And ought a man to be
permitted to slander the Government and not an individual? If the
licentiousness of the press be allowed to go thus far, there will be
nothing safe in character; it will always be in the power of a malicious
person to rob the best men of their reputation with impunity. He
presumed, therefore, that there was no ground for the distinction which
the gentleman had attempted to draw.

The gentleman from Virginia had called upon the advocates of this
resolution to show, that the member from Vermont could be punished a
second time. Mr. B. did not know that the expulsion of a member from his
seat could be considered in the light of a punishment. It was merely
lopping off from the Legislative body a rotten member who contaminates
the whole system. This was done without regard to the member himself,
but with a view solely to the health and purity of the body of which he
is a member. The constitution, however, left no doubt on the subject.

It is said that the member from Vermont has been re-elected, since his
offences were known. He wished the gentleman from Virginia to say, how
this fact was ascertained. At one moment he disputes the truth of the
record, and says it cannot be considered as conclusive or creditable;
yet, at another, he asserts a fact, upon the grounds of an extract of a
letter, or a paragraph in a newspaper, of which this House could take no
notice. The member was not re-elected to the present Congress, nor was
any return made of his re-election to the next. Suppose he had a
majority of votes at the late election, may it not hereafter appear that
the election was carried by corruption or fraud, and that the member is
not entitled to his seat?

It is suggested as a fact that the letter of the member from Vermont was
written before the law passed; but the crime is not in the writing of
the letter, but in the publication of it. There would have been no crime
in scandalously writing, if he had not published the letter. The crime
consisted not in the wickedness of his own heart, but the intention to
corrupt others; the design to scatter firebrands through the community,
with a view of exciting insurrections. If, therefore, he could have
proved before the court and jury that he was not accessory to the
publication after the passing of the law, he would doubtless have been
acquitted; and though he did not think highly of the talents of that
member, he supposed, if this had been the case, he would have had wit
enough to have availed himself of it.

He would say a word with respect to the consequences of the crime upon a
member. In England, a member of the House of Commons may be expelled for
libellous matter. Such was the case with Mr. Wilkes; though in this
case, the transaction was afterwards expunged from the journals, it was
not done upon the principle that the original expulsion was not
justifiable, but because he had been expelled for the same offence,
after he had been re-elected to the same Parliament.

Believing, as he did, that the member in question disgraced the body to
which at present he belonged, he hoped the resolution would be allowed
to wash away the blot which marked and disfigured this branch of the
Government.

Mr. GALLATIN confessed that, though there were some reasons which
diminished his surprise at seeing this resolution on the table, he did
not expect to have heard it defended on the ground which the gentleman
from Delaware had taken in his last speech. He did not expect that when
a judgment, awarded under the sedition law, was under consideration, a
gentleman should rise and tell the House that this law applies to the
publication of opinions as well as to that of facts; and it was less to
be expected from the very gentleman who introduced an amendment into
that law, providing that the truth of a charge may be given in evidence.
His present declaration amounted to this: that those words were
introduced in order to deceive the public, since they could be of no
real use.

The gentleman from Delaware had constantly confounded matter of fact
expressed, not positively, but only as the belief of the writer, and
opinions or deduction from facts. If a man, with a view of defaming the
government, publishes that, in his opinion, according to his belief, a
certain fact does exist, which is susceptible of proof, and is found to
be false, the publication, by the law, is undoubtedly a libel. Thus, if
a man says that, in his opinion, a man is a thief, a bankrupt, or
insolvent, it is not less a libel, than if he said such a person was
positively so, because these things are susceptible of proof. But, when
we speak of opinion, as distinct from fact, we speak of opinions not
susceptible of proof, because they depend upon reasoning, and different
opinions may be deduced from the same facts; therefore, we say that such
opinions are not matter for prosecution even under this law. But, the
gentleman from Delaware says that all opinions are liable to be
prosecuted, provided that they can be proved to be false, scandalous,
and malicious. Proved false! And who are the judges? To be sure, twelve
jurymen, who are sworn to give a verdict according to evidence. And how
can the truth of things which cannot be proved by evidence, be
determined by evidence? An opinion may be incorrect; and, if judged
incorrect by the gentleman from Delaware, it is, according to his
reasoning, to be deemed false, and liable to prosecution.

The House had been told by the gentleman from Delaware, that it has
nothing to do with this trial, any further than the record; that it
ought to be taken as complete evidence of the facts which it contains,
which ought not to be disputed. He also tells the House that courts of
justice are as independent of the Legislature, as the Legislature of
them; that this House has nothing to do with the crime; that it is the
conviction only which they ought to take cognizance of. If, said Mr. G.,
the gentleman from Delaware had not brought forward the resolution now
under discussion, we would have had nothing to do with the business. We
did not bring forward the subject; we have nothing to do with it. Mr. G.
added, I believe I go too far when I say we have nothing to do with it;
for I believe it was the duty of the House to have sent the
Sergeant-at-Arms for the member from Vermont, and demanded him from
confinement, that he might have attended to his duty in this House.

[The SPEAKER said this was not now the question.]

Mr. G. knew this was not the question; he mentioned this to show that
the House might have had something to do with the business. But we did
not, said he, bring the subject before the House; and, if we have
nothing to do with the decision of a court, that decision has nothing to
do with us. If the member from Vermont is to be expelled, he ought to be
expelled, not because he has been convicted, but because he has
committed a crime which renders him unfit to retain his seat. What is
that crime? It is stated in the record: and, stated as it is, he did not
believe it was sufficient to ground a motion of this kind upon. Whatever
is contained in these charges, which is capable of proof, ought to be
taken into consideration, but not what is mere matter of opinion. It was
generally allowed, he believed, that the paragraphs from what is called
Barlow's letter, are of this last description. With respect to the other
part of the charge, viz: the extract from a letter said to be written by
the member from Vermont himself, to which he meant to confine his
observations, he would beg leave to state it. [Mr. G. read it.]

Mr. G. said, the whole of the paragraph was hypothetical; but, supposing
that the member from Vermont had declared it as his opinion "that the
efforts of the Executive power were not bent on the promotion of the
comfort, the happiness, and the accommodation of the people," he wished
to know whether this could be considered as a declaration of fact or
opinion? There is, perhaps, no measure passed by Congress, which one or
other may not think will be contrary to the happiness, comfort, and
accommodation of the people of the United States. We had, said he, the
other day, the question of a navy before us, the establishment of which
many believe is necessary for the promotion of the comfort, happiness,
and accommodation of the people; whereas, in my opinion, and in the
opinion of many others, it will produce the very reverse. How is this
question to be decided? And yet it is known that the President, in his
writings and speaking, has recommended the establishment of a navy; and
persons writing and speaking against this system, which they ought to
do, if they believe the system inimical to the United States, might be
charged with bringing the Congress and PRESIDENT into contempt. But,
doubtless, this is a mere matter of opinion, and not susceptible of
proof by evidence. In order to prove the truth of either assertion, you
must bring forward a dissertation _pro_ and _con_.

The next part of the paragraph, viz: "when I shall see every
consideration of the public welfare swallowed up," &c. So far as relates
to the first member of this sentence, he did not see how it could be
proved. He was not of opinion that every consideration of the public
welfare was swallowed up in a continual grasp for power; but he did
believe that there was a constant disposition, not only in the
Executive, but in many gentlemen on this floor, to increase the power of
the Executive.

[The SPEAKER said, neither this remark, nor the observations on the
Navy, were in order.]

Mr. G. said, that he always wished strictly to adhere to order, and in
order to avoid committing any further mistake, he desired to be informed
why it was out of order? Was the argument not in point; or was it the
declaration of his own opinion, as he went along, that was out of order?
He wished to know, as he meant to be guided by the rule adopted by the
Chair.

[The SPEAKER repeated that the gentleman from Pennsylvania had been out
of order.]

Mr. G. proceeded. With respect to that part of the paragraph which says,
"when I shall see men of firmness, &c., discarded on their application
for office," &c. This, said Mr. G., is, in some degree, matter of fact,
and in some degree, matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact, so far as
that men of firmness, experience, &c., have been turned out of office;
and matter of opinion as to what is said of men of meanness being
preferred in their place. I do believe, said Mr. G., that the first
assertion is true; and what is here written is no more than an
illustration of what has been declared upon this floor, that men of
certain political opinions, however capable, experienced, firm, and
virtuous they might be, were unfit to hold offices. This, Mr. G. said,
was the only fact which could be brought under the law, and he thought
it a fact capable of being proved to be true. Mr. G. adduced, as
evidence of the fact, the cases of the late Commissioner of Revenue for
the United States, and of the Commissioner of Loans for the State of New
Hampshire, who, he said, it was evident, were turned out of office on
account of their political opinions. And he read, in support of his
assertion, the publication of the late Commissioner of Loans of New
Hampshire.

Another part of this paragraph speaks of "an unbounded thirst for
ridiculous pomp." This, said Mr. G., is mere matter of opinion. Take the
member from Vermont to the house of the PRESIDENT, and he may call its
furniture and appendages, ridiculous pomp; take a member from a
different part of the country, and he may declare every thing decent
and plain; but take an overgrown nobleman from Great Britain into the
house of the PRESIDENT, and he would set down every thing he saw as mean
and selfish.

But, I insist upon it, said Mr. G., that matter of opinion ought not to
be subject to cognizance by this law. What, said he, is the nature of
the crime now proposed to be punished by the expulsion of the member
from Vermont? We are told that he has published and uttered false,
seditious, and malicious writings; that though these writings may be
only matter of opinion, yet if those opinions are false, they come under
this law; and, also, that such writings have a tendency to stir up
sedition and insurrection.

Mr. G. would not repeat what had been said as to the unconstitutionality
of the law under which the member from Vermont had been convicted; but
this alone would be a sufficient reason for him to vote against the
present motion. But, supposing the law constitutional, is the crime an
infamous one? Certainly not. It is a political crime, and will always be
determined according to the situation of the parties at the time. For,
said he, we may say as much as we please about the purity of our courts
and juries, and of our own purity; decisions upon political questions
will always be influenced by party spirit. It is we, said Mr. G., that
have introduced this spirit into the courts; and having given them
political questions to decide, it need not be expected that courts will
be free from party prejudice any more than others. Therefore, the
falsehood or maliciousness of a publication will be determined by the
political opinion of the jury.

As to the manner in which the trial of the member from Vermont had been
conducted, he knew nothing of it. He wished the gentleman from
Connecticut, (Mr. ALLEN,) who, it seems, was present at the trial, would
inform the House what proof was adduced to the court to show that the
letter of Mr. LYON was published by him after the sedition law passed.
The letter is dated the 20th of June, the law was passed on the 6th of
July, and the letter was published in Vermont on the 30th of July. He
should be glad to know whether any evidence was adduced to show that Mr.
LYON did any thing relative to that publication, after writing the
letter from Philadelphia on the 20th of June? If not, it will appear
strange, indeed, that he should have been punished for an act done prior
to the passage of the law under which he was convicted.

As to the manner in which the jury had been summoned, he supposed it had
been done in the usual way. Without saying, however, that the jury was
packed, which he did not believe, yet, if the towns out of which the
jury was selected, were the towns which had never given Mr. LYON but one
or two votes at his election, it necessarily results that the jury were
his political enemies; and being called upon to try him for a political
offence, they would, of course, convict him.

Mr. G. said, the lateness of the hour would prevent him from detaining
the House longer. He would only observe that, considering that the
member from Vermont had been tried for a political offence, by a jury
opposed to him in opinion, and upon a law passed on political ground at
the last session; that he had been punished by an imprisonment of four
months, and by a fine of one thousand dollars; that he had been deprived
of his seat in the Legislature for three months: he thought it would
have been better not to have proposed this resolution.

If this resolution should be adopted, it would follow, Mr. G. said, that
every member who shall write any thing which is contrary to the opinion
of a majority of this House, whether what he writes be founded in truth
or not, will be liable to be expelled, in order to purify the House. Mr.
G. thought persecution had followed the member from Vermont long enough.
Every candid man must acknowledge that, if he has committed an offence,
he has already been sufficiently punished by fine and imprisonment; to
expel him from his seat, would carry with it an idea of persecution to
the public, and to his constituents, that they would not be permitted to
have a representative on this floor. He knew the circumstance of the
member from Vermont's having been re-elected could not be introduced as
an argument in his favor, but it might serve to show that what he had
suffered for was no offence in the eyes of his constituents.

The question was put; when there appeared 49 yeas and 45 nays, as
follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard,
      Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, John
      Chapman, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John
      Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight
      Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich,
      William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, Robert
      Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah
      L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel
      Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris,
      Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, Thomas
      Pinckney, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel
      Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Nathaniel
      Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark
      Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Robert
      Waln, and John Williams.

      NAYS.--George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
      Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William
      Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas
      T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas
      Elmendorph, William Findlay, John Fowler, Nathaniel
      Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew
      Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N.
      Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward
      Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair
      McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas,
      Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard
      Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John
      Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham
      Venable, and Robert Williams.

The SPEAKER, declaring the state of the vote, said, the constitution
requiring two-thirds of the members present to expel a member, the
resolution is not carried.


SATURDAY, February 23.

Mr. J. PARKER, from the Navy Committee, reported a bill authorizing the
augmentation of the Marine Corps; which was committed.


MONDAY, February 25.

Mr. GREGG presented two petitions praying for a repeal of the alien and
sedition laws; the one from Cumberland County, signed by 270 persons;
the other from Mifflin County, in Pennsylvania, signed by 314 persons.

Mr. GALLATIN presented another petition of the same kind from Chester
County, signed by 692 persons.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, one of a similar nature, signed by 2,500 citizens of New
York.

Mr. HEISTER, one of the same kind, from 1,400 inhabitants of Berks
County.

Mr. BAYARD, one from the inhabitants of Newcastle County, State of
Delaware, signed by between 700 and 800 persons.

Mr. BAYARD and Mr. BROWN each of them presented petitions to the same
effect, signed by a small number of persons.

The whole were referred as usual.

On motion of Mr. LIVINGSTON, the petition presented some days ago from a
number of alien Irishmen against the alien bill, was also referred--44
to 35.


_Alien and Sedition Laws._

On motion of Mr. GOODRICH, the House went into a Committee of the Whole
on the report of a select committee, on the petitions praying for a
repeal of the alien and sedition laws; which was read by the Chairman,
as follows:

      The committee to whom was referred the memorials of sundry
      inhabitants of the counties of Suffolk and Queen, in the
      State of New York; of Essex County, in New Jersey; of the
      counties of Philadelphia, York, Northampton, Mifflin,
      Dauphin, Washington, and Cumberland, in Pennsylvania; and
      of the county of Amelia, in Virginia; complaining of the
      act, entitled "An act concerning aliens," and other late
      acts of Congress, submit the following report:

      [The report was a condensation of the arguments used in
      support of the two bills by the members who supported them,
      and was accompanied by three resolutions, offered for the
      adoption of the House.]

      Impressed with these sentiments, the committee beg leave to
      report the following resolutions:

      _Resolved_, That it is inexpedient to repeal the act passed
      the last session, entitled "An act concerning aliens"

      _Resolved_, That it is inexpedient to repeal the act passed
      the last session, entitled "An act in addition to the act,
      entitled 'An act for the punishment of certain crimes
      against the United States.'"

      _Resolved_, That it is inexpedient to repeal any of the
      laws respecting the Navy, Military Establishment, or
      revenue of the United States.

The question being upon agreeing to the first resolution declaring it to
be inexpedient to repeal the alien law,

Mr. GALLATIN rose and spoke as follows:

Mr. Chairman: This subject was so fully discussed during the last
session, that I would not have addressed the committee on this occasion,
did I not entertain some hope that the change of circumstances which has
taken place since the laws were enacted, and above all, the sense which
so many of our fellow-citizens have expressed on their propriety and
constitutionality, may induce the House to reconsider their decision of
last year.

Petitions, signed by near 18,000 freemen of this State alone, collected
in a few counties and within a few weeks, have been laid on your table,
earnestly requesting Congress to repeal laws, at best of a doubtful
nature, and passed under an impression of danger which does not now seem
to exist, of general alarm, which has nearly subsided.

Sixteen hundred of my immediate constituents have joined in these
petitions, and their opinion on this subject being the same which I have
uniformly entertained, I feel it forcibly to be my duty to examine the
reasoning used by the select committee who have reported against the
repeal of the obnoxious laws.

The act concerning aliens comes first under consideration. Two laws were
passed during the last session of Congress on that subject, the one
concerning aliens generally, and the other respecting alien enemies. No
petition has been presented against the last, and it would remain in
force even if the first should, agreeably to the request of the
petitioners, be repealed. The petitions apply solely to those provisions
of the first act which are not included in the last. The provision,
therefore, complained of, and which is the subject-matter of the
reference to the committee, is that which authorizes the President to
remove out of the territory of the United States, "all such aliens,
(being natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of a nation which is
_not_ at war with the United States, and which has _not_ perpetrated,
attempted, or threatened any invasion or predatory incursion against the
territory of the United States,) as he shall judge dangerous to the
peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds
to _suspect_ are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations
against the Government thereof."

This authorization is considered by the petitioners as
unconstitutional--1st, because such power being neither among the
specific powers granted by the constitution of the General Government,
nor necessary to carry into effect any of those specific powers, is,
both by incontestable deduction, and by the 12th amendment, reserved to
the individual States; 2d, because, even supposing such power to be by
implication comprehended among those granted to the General Government,
its exercise is, for the present, expressly prohibited to that
Government by the section which provides that the migration or
importation of such persons as any of the States shall think proper to
admit shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808; and
3dly, because aliens are supposed to come under the general description
of persons to whom, by the constitution, the right of a trial of all
crimes by jury is secured.

In answer to the first objection, it is not contended that the power of
removing such aliens is specifically granted by the constitution. But it
is insisted, first, that every nation has a power at will to admit, or
to remove aliens; second, that this power is necessary and proper in
order to carry into effect the specific powers vested in Congress to
declare war and to protect each State from invasion.

To admit the first position in its full extent does not destroy the
force of the objection; for that objection rests not on a supposition
that the power of removing aliens does not exist in the nation; but on
the principle that it is not one of those granted by the nation to the
General Government; that it is one of those intrusted by the nation to
the Governments of the individual States respectively. The second
position is predicated on a construction of the clause of the
constitution and an application of that construction to the act, which
to me appear inadmissible. The expressions used in that clause are
"necessary and proper." The idea conveyed by the word "proper" is
implied in that of the word "necessary," for whatever is necessary must
be proper. The addition of the word "proper" was therefore useless,
unless designed more precisely to ascertain the meaning of the word
"necessary," the better to prevent a construction "that by necessity
nothing more was meant than propriety," and to establish, beyond
contradiction, that whatever might by Congress be thought proper, was
not on that account to be judged necessary. Hence the meaning of the
word "necessary" is confined in that clause to its strict sense, to wit:
the power of passing laws without which some of the powers delegated to
Congress could not be carried into effect.

In the present case it cannot be said that a power generally to remove
aliens, not belonging to a nation from which a war or invasion is
apprehended, is necessary or even proper in order to protect the States
against such a war or invasion. Aliens individually may commit acts
tending to assist the enemy, and, in such case, it would become
necessary to punish them. Should a body of armed aliens (the supposed
case of the select committee) land with views evidently hostile, to
whatever nation they might belong, the act itself would be an invasion,
and the necessity of repelling, or if another expression is selected, of
removing them, would be self-evident and immediately flowing from the
specific power delegated to Congress to protect the States against
invasions. But it is preposterous to say that the necessity of a general
removal of alien friends flows from the apprehension of an invasion. The
law concerning aliens, however, does not designate the acts which shall
establish the necessity of their removal individually. Although they may
not have been concerned in any machinations against Government; although
the machinations in which they may have been concerned shall not have
tended to promote or assist an invasion; and although their machinations
might be sufficiently prevented and punished in the common course of
law; although, therefore, their removal may not be necessary to protect
the States against an invasion; yet, by the present law, they are liable
to be removed, if they shall be suspected of being concerned in those
machinations. Their having actually and individually committed certain
acts is requisite to constitute that necessity which alone can justify
the exercise of the power delegated by this law. And yet that removal,
which, in order to be constitutional, should rest on its necessity,
depends, by the provisions of this law, on the bare suspicion of a
necessity. But necessity implies proof, and cannot rest on suspicion.
The law cannot be supported by the constitution unless that instrument
had declared that Congress shall have power to pass laws which they may
suspect to be proper or necessary in order to carry into effect certain
specific powers delegated to them.

But the law does not even confine its operation to cases when a war or
invasion should be apprehended. Supposing the alarms on that subject to
be completely at an end, still the power remains with the PRESIDENT to
remove aliens suspected by him to be concerned in secret machinations
against Government. The power delegated by this law is not applicable
exclusively to cases where it may be thought necessary in order to carry
into effect the power to protect States against an invasion. It is to
apply generally and under color of its necessity for executing certain
specific powers, it may be exercised in a case where that specific
power, on which alone it rests, has itself, nothing on which to operate.
Although it may happen that there shall be no necessity to protect
States against invasion, it will even then, according to this
constructive doctrine, still be lawful to do an act which cannot be
constitutional, except on account of its being necessary to protect
States against invasion.

In order, therefore, to support the constitutionality of the law, the
select committee must suppose, in the first place, that Congress may
pass laws, without a certainty of their being necessary for carrying
into execution some of the specific powers granted to them; that is to
say, that Congress have a right to pass laws which may be unnecessary
for that purpose. In the next place, that if a certain law is necessary
only for executing a constitutional measure of a temporary nature, that
law may constitutionally be executed, although the temporary measure
itself should not be executed at all; that is to say, that the
incidental power may be exercised for a purpose different than that of
executing the original power on which it rests.

The application of that constructive doctrine to the sedition and alien
laws justifies a conclusion that, if adopted, it will substitute in that
clause of the constitution a supposed usefulness or propriety to the
necessity expressed and contemplated by the instrument, and will, in
fact, destroy every limitation of the powers of Congress. It will follow
that instead of being bound by any positive rule laid down by their
charter, the discretion of Congress, a discretion to be governed by
suspicions, alarms, popular clamor, private ambition, and by the views
of fluctuating factions, will justify any measure they may please to
adopt; that, instead of being bound by a constitution, they may claim
the omnipotence of a British Parliament; that all the reserved powers of
the people or of the States will be swallowed up at their pleasure by
that undefined discretion; in a word, that the constitution itself, so
far as respects a limitation of powers, is by that doctrine completely
annihilated. Even the positive checks, which, in a few instances,
prohibit the exercise of certain powers, will not prove a sufficient
guard against an inordinate appetite to legislate on some favorite
subject.

Thus, in the case of the sedition law, the prohibitory clause,
respecting an abridgment of the liberty of the press, is attempted to be
construed away by star-chamber definitions, by exotic doctrines, which,
if suffered to flourish, will overshadow and smother every plant of
American growth; doctrines incompatible with the principles of a
Government elective in all its Executive and Legislative branches; of a
Government which the people, the sole fountain of power, cannot properly
carry into execution, if the sources of information are shut up from
them; if a free and full discussion of every public measure is at the
will of those who enjoy only a delegated authority, checked and
embarrassed by prosecutions for libels, grounded solely on the British
system of hereditary prerogative.

And thus, in the case of the alien law, it is said that the temporary
prohibition enjoined on Congress, to forbid the importation of persons,
must be understood as applying only to slaves; and that a power to
remove emigrants may be constitutionally exercised, though that of
prohibiting their migration should be unconstitutional.

The evidence of members of the Convention which framed the constitution,
has sometimes been offered to prove that that body by _persons_, meant
_slaves_. But the evidence of those members cannot prove any thing
beyond their own individual intention, or, at most, their belief of what
might have been the intention of some other members. Nor is, on any
possible supposition, the intention of the Convention itself of any
importance to decide the true meaning of the constitution. For they
were not the legislators who passed and ratified the act, but only the
framers who drew the instrument and offered it for consideration. As
well might the Judges of the Supreme Court be induced in their decision
on a point of law, to abandon the clear construction pointed out by the
precise meaning of the words of the statute, on account of the supposed
opinion of some one of the members of the committee of this House that
had drafted the law, as we be guided by what was, at the time, the
meaning of some of the gentlemen who drew the constitution. After a
lapse of ten years, it is preposterous to receive parole evidence
against a sacred record. Are the people of America to be told, after a
lapse of ten years, that the delegation of powers, which they sanctioned
under the impression of what on its face appeared to be its meaning, is
to receive a contrary construction, bottomed on private meaning, on the
unknown opinion of the members of a body whose deliberations were
secret? And if, even through mistake, those individuals adopted
expressions which conveyed a different meaning from what they intended,
is that supposed intention to prevail over the explicit sense of those
expressions?

But we are told by the select committee, that "there could not have been
the least reason" for confining the restriction to the then existing
States, and to a period of twenty years, had the restriction "been
intended" to apply to all emigrants in general. Here again, a supposed
intention is brought as an argument against the general acceptation of
the word "persons." The question is not, whether we are at a loss to
find the reasons which dictated a modification of the restriction. Yet,
if we were to recur to suppositions, we might as well suppose that the
then existing States, which alone formed the constitution, felt
interested only for themselves, and not for future non-existing States;
and that those States, who were interested in promoting the migration of
free persons, were satisfied with the same regulation which satisfied
those States who were apprehensive of an interference in the importation
of slaves. But the only question is, whether modification is
contradictory with the common acceptation of the word "persons," which,
it will not be denied, in its natural sense, will apply to free as well
as to the other description of individuals? Whether there is any thing
absurd or repugnant to common sense, in saying that Congress shall not,
for twenty years, prohibit the migration of free persons in the existing
States? If there be nothing inconsistent in that provision, the
modification of the restriction cannot modify and alter the meaning of
the word "persons."

Was there any possibility of doubt on the sense of that word, it might
be explained by other parts of the constitution and by other expressions
in the clause itself.

The 2d section of the 1st article of the constitution, speaking of the
mode of ascertaining the respective numbers of the several States,
declares that they shall be determined by adding to "the whole number of
free persons" (including those bound to service for a term of years, and
excluding Indians not taxed) "three-fifths of all other persons." A
sentence in which the word _persons_ is expressly applied first to
freemen, and secondly to slaves.

The prohibitory clause itself declares that the migration or importation
of such persons as any of the States, &c., shall not be prohibited. The
word "migration," as contradistinguished from "importation," clearly
implies the free will of the person, and applies exclusively to free
persons.

The select committee have also informed us that the power to send off
emigrants, who abuse the indulgence granted them to remain, is a very
different thing from the power of preventing emigration; meaning, I
suppose, that although Congress might be forbidden by the constitution
to prohibit migration, they may constitutionally send off such
emigrants. Was the power claimed by this law, that of punishing by
transportation aliens convicted of certain offences, defined by the law,
although the constitutional necessity of the mode of punishment would
still remain to be proven, yet the argument of the committee would
deserve some consideration. But it is denied that there is the least
difference between a power of prohibiting emigration and that of sending
off any alien at the will of the PRESIDENT, merely because he is
suspected by that Magistrate. The transportation of the emigrant does
not rest on any act committed by him, but on the degree of suspicion
entertained by the PRESIDENT. The removal, therefore, contemplated by
the law, is not the special removal of certain emigrants, but a general
power to remove all the emigrants, on suspicion, if the PRESIDENT shall
please. I must confess that, to my understanding, that power to remove
all emigrants would, if exercised, (and the law authorizes its general
exercise,) amount precisely to the same thing with a general prohibition
of emigration.

So far is it true that the clause of the constitution admits of a
construction which would defeat its object; that, at the end of it, we
find a provision permitting Congress to lay a duty of ten dollars, not
on migration, but on the importation of persons. Had it not been for
that provision, Congress could not even have checked that importation by
any duty. As the clause now stands, they cannot check the migration by
any duty whatever, nor the importation by a duty higher than ten
dollars. And yet it is contended that notwithstanding so much caution,
Congress may, by a general power of sending off emigrants, evade the
restriction laid upon them, and altogether prevent the effect of
migration.

Finally, if there be any difference between the power of prohibiting
migration and that of sending off emigrants, it consists in this, that
it might have been apprehended that, under color of the general power
over commerce given to Congress, they might, by duties or other
commercial regulations, have prevented or checked migration; but that
there does not exist any power granted to the General Government by the
constitution which can rationally serve as a pretence to claim an
authority to remove emigrants generally. And the only deduction to be
thence inferred is, that the clause now under consideration, although it
might be proper for preventing the exercise of the first power, was
unnecessary for the last purpose--a conclusion to which I agree in its
full extent, and which it seems to me I have already fully established
in the first part of my arguments.

The select committee (driven thereto, perhaps, by the weakness of the
ground they were compelled to defend) have recurred to a last argument,
the most extraordinary, perhaps, of any they have advanced. Having said,
in the former part of their report, that every nation had a right to
send off aliens at will, they afterwards assert that, "as the
constitution has given to the States no power to remove aliens," it is
necessary to conclude that the power devolves to the General Government.

It is, I believe, the first time it has been suggested that the powers
of the individual States were derived from the Constitution of the
United States. That constitution has heretofore been considered as a
delegation of powers to the General Government, and not to the several
States. But the assertion of the committee may be shortly answered by
reading the twelfth amendment to the constitution, viz: "The powers _not
delegated_ to the United States by the constitution, _nor prohibited_ by
it to the States, are _reserved_ to the States, respectively, or to the
people." In order to prove that the powers are not reserved to the
States, it is necessary to prove that they are delegated to Congress;
and the committee, with that kind of logic which pervades the whole of
their report, in order to prove that powers are delegated to Congress,
assume the position that they do not belong to the States. The
constitution declares that the powers not prohibited to the States are
reserved to them, and the committee asserts that the powers not given to
the States, are not reserved to them. It would seem, as the committee
had been desirous of justifying, by their own arguments, what I have
advanced, that the doctrine necessary to support the constitutionality
of this law would infallibly swallow up all the powers of the several
States.

That the States had a right to legislate on this subject never was
denied. It is a fact, that some of them have legislated upon it.
Virginia has passed an alien law, which has been quoted by the
supporters of the law of Congress. It was strange enough, that on a
constitutional question, whether the United States or the several States
had a right to pass such laws, the advocates for the right of Congress
should quote a law of one of the States, which proved the very reverse
of their doctrine. But their object was to puzzle and confound, and not
to enlighten the understanding; and if they meant to rescue the law of
Congress from the charge of impropriety and injustice, by the instance
of that of Virginia, they have been guilty of a gross misrepresentation;
for the act of that State, so far from being similar to that complained
of, is not a law concerning alien friends, but a law respecting alien
enemies, perfectly similar to that of Congress, of which no one
complains, and which passed without opposition.

To the argument against the law, drawn from that part of the
constitution which secures the trial of all crimes by jury, the most
satisfactory answer given by the committee is, that aliens not being
parties to the constitution, have no rights under it. Without entering
into an examination of the constitutional question arising on that
point, I will only remark, that the construction is harsh; and that, to
transport emigrants, "merely from motives of policy," and "without their
having committed any offence," is often unjust--always oppressive and
cruel. The manner in which aliens have been invited to this country, and
the peculiar situation in which they stand, justify the assertion.

The constitution gives to Congress no power over aliens, except that of
naturalization. The power, therefore, remains with the States to give to
aliens the rights of denizens. That power has not been exercised by that
name; but it has, in fact, been carried into effect. Not only in some
States have aliens been enabled to purchase, to hold, to inherit, and to
leave by will, real estate--a right which principally constitutes a
denizen--but many have actually been admitted in some States, either by
special acts of the Legislature, or in conformity to former general
laws, to all the rights of citizens of those States, so far as it was in
the power of individual States to do it; that is to say, that they have
received every right, but such as arise from naturalization--every right
of denizens. On the other hand, the laws of the Union have invited
emigration, by holding out the prospect of being naturalized at the end
of a period which, till nearly the time when the alien law passed, never
exceeded five years. Under these laws, emigrants have, by a formal
declaration before our courts, given evidence of their intention of
becoming citizens and of renouncing their former allegiance--a
declaration almost tantamount to an actual renunciation. They have
abandoned their native countries for ever; many of them have acquired
lands, and married in America; most of them have here the whole of their
property, or their only means of subsistence. Under all these
circumstances, it may be doubtful whether a great proportion of these
aliens are not entitled to the rights of denizens; and if they are not
so, by a strict construction of positive laws, at least, it can hardly
be denied that the provisions of the law violate, in this respect, the
dictates of humanity and justice.

The policy of this measure seems to be defended by the select committee
on the same ground which is to be a pretence and a justification for
every act of domestic oppression, for every encroachment of power, for
every new tax, for every extravagant loan, for every prodigal act of
expenditure, for every increase of the navy, for every standing army
which may be raised under the various names of permanent army,
additional army, provisional army, eventual army, or _well-affected_
volunteers. The alien and sedition acts form, in the opinion of the
committee, an essential part of our general system of defence against
France. I do not mean to follow them, whilst they use, instead of
arguments, the mere cant of the day. They cannot be serious when they
tell us of the employment of the active talents of a numerous body of
French citizens here as emissaries and spies. And if they are, does that
committee mean to impose upon this House, as upon the people of some
parts of the Union? Do we not know that, if there be any danger from
France, the act respecting alien enemies is applicable to her citizens,
and that the law now complained of respects alien friends, and was
originally intended to operate, not against subjects of France, but
against _Irish_ emigrants and other subjects of Great Britain? Do we not
know that, notwithstanding all the clamor of last summer, and
notwithstanding the two laws passed on that subject, not a single French
citizen has been removed?

Still less can I suppose that the committee were in earnest when they
pretended to believe that the United States offered as easy and alluring
a conquest to France as Egypt. They seem to have forgotten that Egypt
was governed and defended by Mamelukes and inhabited by slaves; that the
United States are _as yet_ inhabited and defended by the people
themselves. But if the committee thought that the fear of an invasion
did justify those laws, when passed, will they pretend to say that the
danger, even in their opinion, now exists, and that the same necessity
now justifies the continuance of the laws?

It is not only against invasion that those laws are said to be
necessary. We are told of a system which convulses the civilized world,
and has shaken the fabric of society; of an unprecedented combination to
establish new principles of social action, on the subversion of
religion, morality, law, and Government. If these are the dangers which
threaten us, and if Congress think themselves vested with all the powers
which they may think expedient to repel them, I wish to know to what
extent they may not legislate, and by what possible limitation they can
be restrained, in their assumption of powers? There is not an individual
on this floor, there is not a man of common understanding and common
information in the nation, who, unless he is under the influence of the
illusions of the new anti-republican fanaticism, or blinded by party
spirit, does not know that these pretended dangers are, in America, the
visionary phantoms of a disordered imagination. And I have taken notice
of those sentiments merely to give an additional proof, that under
pretence of preventing imaginary evils, an attempt is made to establish
the omnipotence of Congress, and substantial despotism, on the ruins of
our constitution.

Is that a measure of security and general defence which puts a numerous
body of aliens--aliens who are represented as so desperate and
dangerous--under the absolute control of one man, which, by holding the
rod of terror over their heads, and leaving their fate at his sole
disposal, renders them complete slaves of the PRESIDENT, and makes them
proper instruments for the execution of every project which ambition may
suggest, which faction may dictate? Is that a Government of laws which
leaves us no security but in the confidence we have in the moderation
and patriotism of one man? And do the abettors of these laws forget that
even that is precarious, and that the unlimited power which they think
safely lodged in one individual may in a day be vested in another man in
whom they do not place the same confidence?

Is that a measure of general defence which has diminished confidence in
the Government and produced disunion among the States and among the
people?

Yet I am happy to find that even this law has produced such general
dissatisfaction. I was the more alarmed on account of this law, because,
attacking only aliens, for whom no immediate concern could be felt, it
might the more easily become the vehicle to introduce doctrines and
innovations which would hereafter serve as a precedent to attack the
liberties of the citizens themselves. A pretence of general defence may
justify oppressive measures against citizens as well as against aliens.
Although some nice distinctions may now be made in order to discriminate
one class from the other, yet it must be remembered that the only
security of citizens against unconstitutional measures consists in a
strict adherence to the constitution; that their liberties are only
protected by a _parchment_--by _words_--and that they may be destroyed
whenever it shall be admitted that the strict and common sense of words
may be construed away under the plea of some supposed necessity;
whenever the constitution shall be understood and exercised as an
instrument unlimited where it grants power, and nugatory where it limits
power.

We may feel alarmed when we see a committee of this House asserting that
the powers not given to the States (and it may be added, by the same
rule of construction, the powers not given to the people by the
constitution) belong to the General Government. We may feel alarmed when
that committee insist that, although it is true that the trial of all
crimes must be by jury, yet, to inflict a punishment when no offence--no
crime--has been committed, is not a violation of the constitution; when
the only distinction they apply to citizens consists in the difference
of punishment, but not in a difference of the principle. We may feel
alarmed when we find that Congress have already acted on those
principles towards citizens; that they have already passed another
law--the sedition law--grounded on the same principles, on the same
doctrine, or rather on the same abandonment of the explicit and evident
sense of the constitution, which alone could justify the alien law. I
hope--I trust--that the spirit which dictated both laws has subsided,
even within these walls, and that the same Congress who, under the
impressions of a momentary alarm, which prevented a cool investigation,
hastily adopted those two measures, will have courage enough to revise
their own conduct, to acknowledge their own errors, and, by a repeal of
the obnoxious acts, restore general confidence, union, and harmony,
amongst the States and the people.

When Mr. GALLATIN had concluded, the question was taken and
carried--yeas 52, nays 48.

The 2d resolution being next in order, viz:

      _Resolved_, That it is inexpedient to repeal the act passed
      the last session, entitled "An act in addition to the act,
      entitled An act for the punishment of certain crimes
      against the United States:"

Mr. NICHOLAS rose and spoke as follows:

Mr. Chairman--I am sorry to be obliged to rise at this late hour of the
day, indisposed also as I find myself, to speak on this important
question; but, since gentlemen are determined now to decide upon it, I
must be indulged in making some observations upon it, previous to the
question being taken.

The select committee had very truly stated, that only the second and
third sections of the act, in addition to the act for the punishment of
certain crimes against the United States, are complained of--that the
part of the law which punishes seditious acts is acquiesced in, and that
the part that goes to restrain what are called seditious writings, is
alone the object of the petitions.

This part of the law is complained of as being unwarranted by the
constitution, and destructive of the first principles of Republican
Government. It is always justifiable, in examining the principle of a
law, to inquire what other laws can be passed with equal reason, and to
impute to it all the mischiefs for which it may be used as a precedent.
In this case, little inquiry is left for us to make, the arguments in
favor of the law carrying us immediately, and by inevitable consequence,
to absolute power over the press. The case chosen for our first
legislation, that of "false, scandalous, and malicious writings," is
specious, and as likely as any can be to establish an interest in its
favor; but when it is fairly examined, it will be found to operate on
cases, which could not, at first view, be expected to come under it; to
be the instrument of most unjust oppression, and to restrain that free
communication of honest opinion which is the soul of the Government. But
when you come to inquire further, and learn, from the advocates of the
law, the authority which they claim for passing it, you will find that
the power claimed does not stop even with this law, mischievous as it
may be, but that it extends to absolute and unlimited control.

It is not pretended that the constitution has given any _express_
authority which they claim for passing this law, and it is claimed only
as implied in that clause of the constitution which says, "Congress
shall have power 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." It is, therefore, necessary to fix
a just construction of this clause.

That the powers of the Federal Government were intended to be limited,
is universally admitted, in the abstract; is proved by every clause of
the constitution, and is positively declared by the 12th amendment in
these words: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

The just construction of the constitution, if the clause respecting
necessary and proper powers had been omitted, would have been the same
that it ought to be with the addition; for there can be no doubt, that a
grant of specified powers would have contained a grant of such power as
is necessary to carry the specified power into effect, and therefore the
declaration ought to make no difference, according to a well-known
maxim. This was the understanding of all the friends of the constitution
at its adoption, and the constitution ought now to be construed as if
the clause had been omitted. But it is proper to examine the meaning of
it, as expressed.

It is clear, that this clause was intended to be merely an auxiliary to
the powers specially enumerated in the constitution; and it must,
therefore, be so construed as to aid them, and at the same time to leave
the boundaries between the General Government and the State Governments
untouched. The argument by which the select committee have endeavored to
establish the authority of Congress over the press, is the following:
"Congress have power to punish seditious combinations to resist the
laws, and therefore Congress must have the power to punish false,
scandalous and malicious writings; because such writings render the
Administration odious and contemptible among the people, and, by doing
so, have a tendency to produce opposition to the laws."

It is expressly admitted by the committee, that the power to punish
seditious combinations to resist the laws, is only derived, by
construction, from the clause giving all necessary and proper powers
before recited; and that there is no express power in the constitution
to that effect. There is no dispute about this construction being just;
but I contend that the inference from this implied power cannot be
supported, viz: That Congress have a power to punish seditious writings.

The constitution says: "Congress shall have power over all acts which
hinder the execution," &c.; but, to make it support the construction of
the committee, it should say that, "Congress shall have power over all
acts which are likely to produce acts which hinder the execution," &c.
Our construction confines the power of Congress to such acts as
immediately interfere with the execution of the enumerated powers of
Congress; because the power can only be necessary as well as proper,
when the acts really would hinder the execution. The construction of the
committee extends the power of Congress to all acts which have a
relation, ever so many degrees removed, to the enumerated powers, or
rather to the acts which would hinder their execution. By our
construction, the constitution remains defined and limited, according to
the plain intent and meaning of the framers; by the construction of the
committee, all limitation is lost, and it may be extended over the
different actions of life as speculative politicians may think fit.

The suggestion on which the authority over the press is founded, is,
that seditious writings have a tendency to produce opposition to
Government. What has a greater tendency to fit men for insurrection and
resistance to Government, than dissolute, immoral habits, at once
destroying love of order, and dissipating the fortune which gives an
interest in society?

The doctrine that Congress can punish any act which has a tendency to
hinder the execution of the laws, as well as acts which do hinder it,
will, therefore, clearly entitle them to assume a general guardianship
over the morals of the people of the United States.

Again: nothing can have a greater tendency to ensure obedience to law,
and nothing can be more likely to check every propensity to resistance
to Government, than virtuous and wise education; therefore Congress must
have power to subject all the youth of the United States to a certain
system of education. It would be very easy to connect every sort of
authority used by any government with the well-being of the General
Government, and with as much reason as the committee had for their
opinion to assign the power to Congress, although the consequence must
be the prostration of the State Governments.

But enough has been said to show the necessity of adhering to the common
meaning of the word "necessary," in the clause under consideration,
which is, that the power to be assumed must be one without which some
one of the enumerated powers cannot exist or be maintained. It cannot
escape notice, however, that the doctrine contended for, that the
Administration must be protected against writings which are likely to
bring it into contempt, as tending to opposition, will apply with more
force to truth than falsehood. It cannot be denied that the discovery
of maladministration will bring more lasting discredit on the government
of a country, than the same charges would if untrue.

This is not an alarm founded merely on construction; for the governments
which have exercised control over the press, have carried it the whole
length. This is notoriously the law of England, from whence this system
has been drawn; for there, truth and falsehood are alike subject to
punishment, if the publication brings contempt on the officers of
government.

I have shown, as I promised, that the authority on which this act is
supported, gives unlimited power over the press, as to its investigation
of public affairs, which is its most important function; and I will now
endeavor to show, that the effect of the present law is very little
short of the complete restraint of all useful discussion on public men
and measures.

The law has been current by the fair pretence of punishing nothing but
falsehood, and by holding out to the accused the liberty of proving the
truth of the writing; but, it was from the first apprehended, and it
seems now to have been adjudged, (the doctrine has certainly been
asserted on this floor,) that matters of opinion, arising on notorious
facts, come under the law. If this is the case, where is the advantage
of the law requiring that the writing should be false, before a man
shall be liable to punishment, or of his having the liberty of proving
the truth of his writing? Of the truth of facts there is an almost
certain test; the belief of honest men is certain enough to entitle it
to great confidence; but their opinions have no certainty at all. The
trial of the truth of opinions, in the best state of society, would be
altogether precarious; and, perhaps, a jury of twelve men could never be
found to agree in any one opinion. At the present moment, when,
unfortunately, opinion is almost entirely governed by prejudice and
passion, it may be more decided, but nobody will say it is more
respectable; chance must determine whether political opinions are true
or false, and it will not unfrequently happen, that a man will be
punished for publishing opinions which are sincerely his, and which are
of a nature to be extremely interesting to the public, merely because
accident, or design, has collected a jury of different sentiments.

If the effect of the present law is to restrain the free communication
of opinion, and its principle will justify any control Government
chooses to exercise over the press, an inquiry may safely be entered on,
whether Congress ought to possess the power, even if the clause giving
necessary and proper power would extend to such remote cases? It is the
more necessary to inquire into the usefulness of this power in the hands
of Congress, since the opinion is becoming current, that that alone will
give Congress a right to assume it, upon the principle that Government
must have a right to do every thing proper for its safety. This doctrine
may be very fallacious, if not taken in the restricted sense to be
found in the clause giving necessary powers. No government can assume a
power not delegated, on pretence of its being necessary; for none have a
right to judge of what is necessary but the makers of the constitution,
otherwise all governments would be competent to make every alteration in
a constitution they might think proper, and the constitution would rank
with the laws, and not above them. For the execution of powers expressly
given, there must have been some latitude allowed to those who were to
execute them, the same in fact which is expressed in the clause
respecting necessary powers.

Is the power claimed proper for Congress to possess? It is believed not,
and will readily be admitted, if it can be proved, as I think it can,
that the persons who administer the Government have an interest in the
power to be confided, opposed to that of the community. It must be
agreed that the nature of our Government makes a diffusion of knowledge
of public affairs necessary and proper, and that the people have no mode
of obtaining it but through the press. The necessity for their having
this information, results from its being their duty to elect all the
parts of the Government, and, in this way, to sit in judgment over the
conduct of those who have been heretofore employed. The most important
and necessary information for the people to receive is, of the
misconduct of the Government; because their good deeds, although they
will produce affection and gratitude to public officers, will only
confirm the existing confidence, and will, therefore, make no change in
the conduct of the people. The question, then, whether the Government
ought to have control over the persons who alone can give information
throughout a country, is nothing more than this, whether men interested
in suppressing information necessary for the people to have, ought to be
intrusted with the power, or whether they ought to have a power which
their personal interest leads to the abuse of? I am sure no candid man
will hesitate about the answer; and it may also safely be left with
ingenuous men to say whether the misconduct which we sometimes see in
the press, had not better be borne with, than to run the risk of
confiding the power of correction to men who will be constantly urged by
their own feelings to destroy its usefulness.

The mode of thinking which countenances this law, and the doctrines on
which it is built, are derived from a country whose government is so
different from ours, that the situation of public officers ought to be
very different. In Great Britain, the King is hereditary, and, according
to the theory of their government, can do no wrong. Public officers are
his representatives, and derive some portion of his inviolability from
theory, but more from the practice of the government, which has, for the
most part, been very arbitrary. It was, therefore, of course, that they
should receive a different sort of respect from that which is proper in
our Government, where the officers of government are the servants of
the people, are amenable to them, and liable to be turned out of office
at periodical elections. In Great Britain, writings are seditious,
though they are true, if they tend to bring a public officer into
contempt.

In this country, it is seen that the same principle is contended for,
and that in practice, with respect to matters of opinion, we have gone
the whole length of the principle. How long can we expect to maintain
the other distinctive qualities of the magistracy of the two countries,
when this sameness is established? How long can it be desirable to have
periodical elections, for the purpose of judging of the conduct of our
rulers, when the channels of information may be choked at their will?

But, sir, I have ever believed this question as settled by an amendment
to the constitution, proposed with others, for declaring and restricting
its powers, as the preamble declares, at the request of several of the
States, made at the adoption of the constitution, in order to prevent
their misconstruction and abuse. This amendment is in the following
words: "Congress shall 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 the right of the people peaceably
to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There can be no doubt about the effect of this amendment, unless the
"freedom of the press" means something very different from what it
seems; or unless there was some actual restraint upon it, under the
Constitution of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this
amendment, commensurate with that imposed by this law. Both are
asserted, viz: that the "freedom of the press" has a defined, limited
meaning, and that the restraints of the common law were in force under
the United States, and are greater than those of the act of Congress;
and that, therefore, either way the "freedom of the press" is not
abridged.

It is asserted by the select committee, and by every body who has gone
before them in this discussion, that the "freedom of the press,"
according to the universally received acceptation of the expression,
means only an exemption from all previous restraints on publication, but
not to an exemption from any punishment Government pleases to inflict
for what is published. This definition does not at all distinguish
between publications of different sorts, but leaves all to the
regulation of the law, only forbidding Government to interfere until the
publication is really made. The definition, if true, so reduces the
effect of the amendment, that the power of Congress is left unlimited
over the productions of the press, and they are merely deprived of one
mode of restraint.

The amendment was certainly intended to produce some limitation to
legislative discretion, and it must be construed so as to produce such
an effect, if it is possible. This is required in the construction of
all solemn acts, but must be more particularly due to this on account
of the various examinations it underwent, previous to its adoption. It
was first recommended by the conventions of several States, was adopted
by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and finally ratified by
three-fourths of the State Legislatures. To give it such a construction
as will bring it to a mere nullity, would violate the strongest
injunctions of common sense and decorum; and yet that appears to me to
be the effect of the construction adopted by the committee. If
subsequent punishments are sufficient to deter printers from publishing
any thing which is prohibited, there is no stint to the power of
Congress; and yet, it appears to me that a limitation was clearly
intended. I cannot doubt the power of Government to bend printers to
their will by subsequent punishments, when all other offences are
restrained only in this way. Government does not punish men for keeping
instruments with which they can commit murder, but contents itself with
punishing murder when committed. The effect of the amendment, says the
committee, is to prevent Government taking the press from its owner; but
how is their power lessened by this, when they may take the printer from
his press and imprison him for any length of time, for publishing what
they choose to prohibit, although it may be ever so proper for public
information? The result is, that Government may forbid any species of
writing, true as well as false, to be published; may inflict the
heaviest punishments they can devise for disobedience; and yet we are
very gravely assured that this is "the freedom of the press."

But it is worth while to trace this definition to the place from whence
it is taken, and inquire into the circumstances in which it is used.
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, after stating
the law respecting libels, which is, that every thing which brings a
magistrate into contempt is punishable, whether true or false, goes on
to say, that this law is not inconsistent with the liberty of the press;
and then gives a definition of the liberty of the press in the manner it
is used by the committee. The meaning of all Blackstone has said is
this, that the press has the proper degree of liberty in England, and
that libels, whether true or false, ought to be punished there. Let us
apply what he has called a definition, in the way he used it, to the
legislation of the United States. Suppose the present question was,
whether we should punish truth, as well as falsehood, in libels, would
gentlemen venture to tell us that it was consistent with the freedom of
the press, or that the degree of freedom proper for the United States
would remain? I venture to say they would not. Ought they, then, to
support the doctrine which hereafter may be practised on to the full
extent? Is there not reason to believe gentlemen hope to conceal the
full extent of their principles, by bringing them into operation only by
degrees? But, sir, it is a manifest abuse of Blackstone's authority to
apply it as it has been here applied. He had advanced into the fourth
volume of a panegyric on the laws of England, and after stating the law
on this subject, makes a theory to justify the actual state of the law.
It must be remarked, in his justification, that the nature of their
government justifies more rigor than is consistent with ours, and that
the existing law, of which he was writing the praise, had been greatly
softened in practice, by public opinion. In this case, there was no
danger of impairing the security to liberty, intended by the
constitution; for England has no constitution but what may be altered by
the Parliament, and therefore no great precision was necessary with
respect to general principles. Indeed, his observations on this subject
ought to be called a theory, and a theory adapted merely to his own
country, and not a definition. Very different are the circumstances in
which his doctrine has been applied here. A restrictive clause of the
Constitution of the United States, by its application, is made to mean
nothing, and when it is clearly the intention of the constitution to
put, at least, some acts of the press out of the control of Congress, by
the authority of this writer, all are subjected to their power.

But it is said, that the States have all adopted the same construction
which is given to freedom of the press by the committee, for that all
the State constitutions provide for it, and yet the law of libels
remains part of their codes. If this is fact, about which however I am
uninformed, it is easily to be accounted for. At the Revolution, the
State laws were either the law of England, or were built on it, and, of
course, they would contain the monarchical doctrine respecting libels.
When the State constitutions were formed, the old law was continued in
force indiscriminately, and only a general exception made of what should
be found inconsistent with the State constitutions. Now, to prove that
the States have considered the law of libels consistent with the freedom
of the press, gentlemen should show that this law has been practised on
since the Revolution, and that the attention of the States had been
called to it by its execution, and that it still remains in force. I
believe this cannot be done. So far as I know, it has been a dead
letter. I mean the law of libels against magistrates, and if so, the
argument is reversed, and is wholly on my side. The terms of this law
furnish one of the best proofs of the truth of my opinion; for the
framers of it, wound up as they have been, in their notions about
Government, since the adoption of the State Governments, endeavored to
take a middle course between real liberty and the State law, which is
supposed to continue in force, and have studiously endeavored to conceal
that their doctrine leads to the same thing by constantly pretending
that their law is to punish only falsehood. This is a plain admission,
that even now, public opinion would not support what they pretend is the
law of each State. But from the argument before urged, I think it must
be admitted, that if the States had so understood it, the construction
could not be extended to this amendment. No solemn instrument can be
construed so as to destroy it. I have seen somewhere, and I beg leave
here to remark on it, the authority of the Convention who formed the
constitution of Virginia, quoted to justify this construction. That
Convention is said to have passed a law similar to the law of Congress,
after having provided for the liberty of the press in their bill of
rights. Let us examine that law. The first section is to punish those
who shall "by any word, open deed, or act, advisedly and willingly
maintain or defend the authority, jurisdiction, or power of the King, or
Parliament of Great Britain, heretofore claimed over this Colony, or
shall attribute any such authority," &c. This section, passed at the
beginning of the most awful contest in which ever man was engaged, a
contest for the right of self-government against one of the most
powerful nations in the world, was to establish what? Not the
inviolability of the Governor of the State, nor of the majority of
either House of the Legislature, but to punish men who should promote
resistance to the right of the people to govern themselves, to the
principle of the constitution, to the republican principle. So different
is this from the object of the law of Congress, that it would have been
impossible to believe that they should have been compared, if we had not
seen it done. All argument must be thrown away on gentlemen who do not
feel the difference between the respect due to the constitution, to the
right of self-government in the people, and that which is due to the
organs of administration, who cannot only deserve contempt, but who are
to be removed with disgrace, according to the constitution itself, when
they misbehave. By the second section of this law, those were to be
punished "who should maliciously and advisedly endeavor to excite the
people to resist the Government of the colony, or persuade them to
return to a dependence on the Crown of Great Britain, or maliciously and
advisedly to excite or raise tumults and disorders in the State, or
maliciously and advisedly terrify and discourage the people from
enlisting in the service of the Commonwealth, or dispose them to favor
the enemy." The design of this section is apparently the same with the
former. Every act of ill-will to the existing Government, is immediately
followed by one tending to submission to Great Britain. These acts are,
however, out of the question, for they belong to the class enumerated in
the first section of the sedition law, which nobody wishes to repeal, as
the committee declare. But if the law had any analogy to the law of
Congress, it would be improper to quote it; for it is well known that
our Revolution made a resort to expedients necessary in a variety of
instances, which could not be justified by principle, and that for a
time personal rights were compelled to bend before public necessity.

A distinction is very frequently relied on, between the freedom and the
licentiousness of the press, which it is proper to examine. This seems
to me to refute every other argument which is used on this subject; it
amounts to an admission that there are some acts of the press which
Congress ought not to have power to restrain, and that by the amendment
they are prohibited to restrain these acts. Now, to justify any act of
Congress, they ought to show the boundary between what is prohibited and
what is permitted, and that the act is not within the prohibited class.
The constitution has fixed no such boundary, therefore they can pretend
to no power over the press, without claiming the right of defining what
is freedom, and what is licentiousness, and that would be to claim a
right which would defeat the constitution; for every Congress would have
the same right, and the freedom of the press would fluctuate according
to the will of the Legislature. This is, therefore, only a new mode of
claiming absolute power over the press.

But it is said, that the phraseology of the amendment proves that the
framers of it considered the freedom of the press as limited, otherwise
they would have used the same words in speaking of the freedom of the
press which they use in speaking of religious establishments. This
argument is certainly fanciful; but it shall be considered, as it is my
design to leave no argument, which I recollect to have seen, unanswered.
It is plain the writer of the amendment intended to indulge his
copiousness of expression, or that he had been accustomed to use certain
words in a particular connection. The amendment says, in speaking of
religion, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The change of
expression, according to the argument, ought to have some new object;
and yet there can be no doubt that if the word _prohibiting_ was
dropped, the provision would be the same. But the argument will lose all
force when the amendment is read to the end, and it seems to have arisen
merely from the committee having stopped in the middle of it, and lost
sight of the latter part. It says, "or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The argument is
that the word _abridging_, as it is distinguished from _respecting_,
implies that the freedom of the press was before limited; but, if this
is true, it must also be the case with the right of peaceably assembling
and petitioning, &c. Is this pretended, and may we hereafter expect to
have a definition of the right of petitioning, which will put it also
under the control of Congress?

I think I have answered every construction of the amendment which can
prevent its being completely prohibitory of all legislation by Congress
on the subject of the press, unless there was some existing restraint
under the Constitution of the United States, at the time of adopting
the amendment. To this inquiry I now proceed.

It is said, there is a common law which makes part of the law of the
United States, which restrained the press more than the act of Congress
has done, and that therefore there is no _abridgment_ of its freedom.
What this common law is I cannot conceive, nor have I seen any body who
could explain himself when he was talking of it. It certainly is not a
common law of the United States, acquired as that of England was, by
immemorial usage. The standing of the Government makes this impossible.
It cannot be a code of laws adopted because they were universally in use
in the States, for the States had no uniform code; and if they had, it
could hardly become, by implication, part of the code of a Government of
limited powers, from which every thing is expressly retained, which is
not given. There never was a uniform code of laws at any time among the
States. Their settlement took place at different times, and the law of
England was adopted up to the respective settlements, in the whole or by
selection. Virginia recognized the common law, properly so called, and
the statutes to the 4th James I.; Maryland, the common law, and statutes
up to the time of her settlement; and South Carolina, I am told, never
acknowledged any of the English statutes to be in force, except what
were specially adopted by law. With this dissimilarity at the
commencement, there can be no doubt that the decisions of courts, and
the statutes which were constantly passing, must have made the codes of
the several States altogether unlike at the time of adopting the Federal
Government. Is it the law of England, at any particular period, which is
adopted? It cannot be believed that this was a universal favorite; for
it had been greatly altered in every State, to adapt it to their
situation, and it cannot be believed that after altering it under the
instruction of experience, it was intended to bring it again into force.
But the nature of the law of England makes it impossible that it should
have been adopted in the lump into such a Government as this is; because
it was a complete system for the management of all the affairs of a
country. It regulated estate, punished all crimes, and, in short, went
to all things for which laws are necessary. It might be more properly
considered as the measure of the powers left with the States. But how
was this law adopted? Was it by the constitution? If so, it is immutable
and incapable of amendment. In what part of the constitution is it
declared to be adopted? Was it adopted by the courts? From whence do
they derive their authority? The constitution, in the clause first
cited, relies on Congress to pass all laws necessary to enable the
courts to carry their powers into execution; it cannot, therefore, have
been intended to give them a power not necessary to their declared
powers. There does not seem to me the smallest pretext for so monstrous
an assumption; on the contrary, while the constitution is silent about
it, every fair inference is against it. It was thought necessary to
adopt expressly many of the ancient and most valuable principles of the
law of England, such as trial by jury, and the writ of _habeas corpus_;
and wherever the constitution gives cognizance of crimes, which were
known in the law, it requires Congress to define them, and direct the
punishment, except in the case of treason, which it defines itself.
Perhaps it may be said, that the law of England with respect to libel
was in force in all the States, and that therefore it is to be
considered as adopted. When we recollect what that law is, that it
punishes truth as well as falsehood, and that the Congress of 1798 did
not think proper to enact its provisions in the full extent, it may be
fairly denied that it could have accorded with the jealous republican
temper of the Convention who adopted the constitution. If the common law
was adopted on this subject, it was adopted entire as it then existed,
and must remain for ever unchangeable as part of the constitution. The
power of juries must be the same that it was then, and no more, and the
improvement which was immediately afterwards produced by public opinion
in that respect, in England, will be denied to us, and we may even have
to regret the want of some of the provisions of the present odious law;
but there is too little reason for the suggestion of there being a
common law in the United States, to need a refutation. If there was a
uniformity in the law respecting libels, it is one of the strongest
evidences of what was before said, that this whole doctrine of libels
was obsolete; for nobody can doubt, after hearing what it is, that it
must have undergone considerable changes, if it had ever been practised
on.

The committee seem to suppose, for I confess it is very difficult to
comprehend this part of their argument, that the law of libels is
adopted by that part of the constitution which extends the judicial
power to cases of law and equity arising under the constitution; for
this is the expression of the part referred to by them, and not
"offences arising under the constitution," as they have quoted it. How
this can be inferred, I cannot conceive. If the expression was
"offences," as they assert, still it would mean offences on which
Congress was directed by the constitution to legislate; but, as the
expression really is, the cases are innumerable which come within it.
See "The Federalist," vol. II., for an explanation of this part of the
constitution. It is there said: "It has been asked, what is meant by
cases arising under the constitution, in contradistinction from those
arising under the laws of the United States? All the restrictions on the
authority of the State Legislature furnish examples of it," &c. For the
opinion of the same writer, as to the force of the common law in the
United States, see same volume, page 345, and the two following pages,
in which he answers the objection to an omission of its provisions, and
admits that it is not adopted by the constitution.

Upon the whole, therefore, I am fully satisfied, that no power is given
by the constitution to control the press, and that such laws are
expressly prohibited by the amendment. I think it inconsistent with the
nature of our Government, that its administration should have power to
restrain animadversions on public measures; and for protection from
private injury from defamation, the States are fully competent. It is to
them that our officers must look for protection of persons, estates, and
every other personal right; and, therefore, I see no reason why it is
not proper to rely upon it, for defence against private libels.

The call for the question being loud,

Mr. MCDOWELL rose, and hoped the question would not now be taken, but
that the committee would rise, it being now a late hour of the day, and
he doubted not other gentlemen would wish to deliver their sentiments
upon this important question; and he thought an hour or two of to-morrow
might be well employed in the discussion of this subject--a subject
which had been brought before the House by the people, and ought,
therefore, to receive a full discussion. He moved the committee to rise.

The question on rising, was put and negatived--55 to 42.

The question was then taken on the resolution, and carried, 52 votes
being in favor of it.

The question was then taken upon the third resolution, which was carried
without a division.

The committee then rose, and the question being upon concurring in the
agreement of the committee for the first resolution,

Mr. LIVINGSTON entered upon a defence of the sentiments which he
delivered when the passage of this law was under consideration, which,
he said, had been much misrepresented; but, after making some progress
in his observations, the Speaker declaring them unconnected with the
question before the House, he sat down, and the first resolution was
decided by yeas and nays, and stood--52 to 48, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James
      A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock,
      Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran,
      William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, William Edmond,
      Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan
      Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon,
      Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper,
      Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James
      H. Imlay, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews,
      Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac
      Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Read, John Rutledge, jr.,
      James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas
      Sinnickson, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George
      Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas
      Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert
      Waln, and John Williams.

      NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thomas Blount, Richard
      Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne,
      William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
      Thos. T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Joseph Eggleston,
      Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John Fowler, Nathaniel
      Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew
      Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N.
      Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward
      Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon,
      Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith,
      William Smith, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Thos.
      Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

Mr. MCDOWELL then moved an adjournment; which was negatived--55 to 38.

The question was then taken on the second resolution, upon which the
yeas and nays were exactly the same as upon the first.

The question on the third was concurred in, 61 votes being for it.


SATURDAY, March 2.

EVENING SITTING.

_Law of Retaliation._

Mr. OTIS called the order of the day on the bill vesting the power of
retaliation, in certain cases, in the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
when

Mr. DENT moved to postpone the consideration of this bill until the next
session of Congress; which motion was negatived--35 to 32.

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on this bill, and
after some discussion, and an amendment being introduced into the
preamble of the bill by Mr. DAYTON, (the Speaker,) to make it apply
generally to any acts of severity that may be committed by the French
Republic in pursuance of any violent decree, instead of applying
particularly to the decree declaring American citizens, found on board
vessels of their enemy, pirates, and liable to suffer death, the
committee rose, and the amendment was concurred in.

The question being, "Shall this bill pass?"

Mr. LIVINGSTON complained that this bill went to place the power of life
and death in the hands of the PRESIDENT, with respect to every Frenchman
in this country, in case the French Government should commit any act of
violence against one of our citizens. He doubted, indeed, whether he
would not have this power, in case of any American citizen being killed
in battle on board a British ship. The Legislature, he said, had no
right to vest this power, except in case of war; nor did he believe it
would ever be exercised, if given. And as the decree complained of had
been two years in existence without being carried into effect, he
thought there was no need now to create an alarm about it. Indeed, the
last decree having been suspended, he considered the first to be so
also.

Mr. EDMOND was sorry, at this late hour, to occupy a single moment of
the time of the House; but he found himself called upon to say a few
words. It was a painful reflection, he said, that any nation in the
world should deliberately pass a legislative act for the purpose of
authorizing the commission of murder; for the _arrêt_ of the French
Republic was nothing less than a law for putting innocent men to death.
An instance like it could not be found on record. In time of war
retaliation is found necessary to prevent the enormities of an enemy.
Indeed, the intention of retaliation is always to prevent cruelty. This
decree was said to be suspended; but if it were not intended to give it
future operation, it would have been repeated. It might be convenient to
suspend the decree for a time; but when a nation is so depraved as to
pass a decree of this kind, what security have we that the decree will
not be brought into operation in the recess of Congress. If it is not,
the present law can have no effect. Mr. E. believed no one but the
gentleman from New York could have supposed that this law was meant to
retaliate for men killed in battle. If he examines the bill, he will
find that the person must have been put to death pursuant to a decree of
the French Republic. And whilst we suffer our humanity to be touched
with respect to French citizens here, we ought not to forget American
citizens, whose blood may be spilt in France under this decree.

Mr. GALLATIN observed, that three arguments had been used in favor of
passing this bill. One of them was, that it would afford protection to
our seamen; the second, to give sufficient cause of irritation by
repelling every hostile measure of the French Government by one of a
similar nature; the third, to prevent the people of America having any
belief in either the sincerity of France or the probability of a
negotiation.

Mr. G. did not believe that this bill would give the protection expected
to our seamen; and as to the power of retaliation, well knowing, both
from the character of the PRESIDENT and the general character of
America, that retaliation would be repugnant to his feelings, and the
feelings of the public at large, he did not believe a single case would
ever happen in which it would be exercised. What, said Mr. G., would be
the degree of proof necessary to carry into effect this law? A man must
have been taken on board a British vessel, or some other vessel at war
with France, and put to death or ill-treated by the French. It must also
be proved to have been done in pursuance of a French decree. In the next
place, he must be an American citizen, and have been compelled to go on
board such ship; and Mr. G. did not know how all this information was to
come to the PRESIDENT.

If, said Mr. G., it be really our intention to give protection to our
seamen, instead of authorizing the proposed retaliation, we ought to go
to the source of the evil, and endeavor to prevent the impressment of
our seamen by the British, which alone brought them into this
situation. This bill does not comprehend any American who goes on board
of a British ship of war voluntarily; they are not entitled to our
protection by the law of nations; they must seek protection from the
country under whose flag they sail. Those American citizens only,
therefore, who have been forced on board a British ship of war, and who
have been obliged to fight their battles against their will, are by this
bill to be protected, so far as retaliation can protect them.

Mr. G. said, he had been induced to mention this point, not only because
it naturally flows from the subject, but from one of the documents which
had been submitted to the House. He alluded to Lord Grenville's letter
to Mr. King, our Minister at London. [Mr. G. read an extract of that
letter.]

Mr. G. observed, upon this document, that it contained a very
extraordinary acknowledgment. Lord Grenville says, "the King feels the
protection due to those who sail under his flag." Thereby openly
acknowledging that there are a number of American seamen who do sail
under his flag. And, as not many of our seamen had selected his service
in preference to that of their own country; as our own seamen, if left
to their choice, would sooner sail on board of our own ships than those
of His British Majesty, it is therefore an explicit avowal of the
impressment of American seamen. That identical document which
communicates the offensive decree of France, is also the occasion of
this bill.

This acknowledgment, said Mr. G., leads to more than one consequence. If
we pass this bill, it will amount to this, that knowing American seamen
were impressed by the British, the fact having been thus confessed, we
choose rather to pass a retaliatory law against the French for punishing
our seamen found in a situation into which they were arbitrarily forced
by the British, than apply a remedy to the root of the evil.

Again, another part of this letter of Lord Grenville, when connected
with this measure, made an extraordinary impression on his mind. The
acknowledgment having been made, it might have been supposed Lord
Grenville would have ordered all such American seamen to have been
released; but he does not do this, but says the King will cause
retaliation to be exercised. To do this might have some effect whilst
these men remained on board of the King's ships; it would, therefore,
increase his power, and prolong the time during which such seamen will
remain on board. But Lord Grenville does not stop here. He says, the
"King leaves it with the different powers to take measures accordingly."
So that he gives us advice what we ought to do, and we are about to do
it. Mr. G. had said, this bill was not likely to produce any effect;
yet, if it should be put in force, by referring once more to Lord
Grenville's letter, it will appear that the retaliation of which he
speaks is to be confined to French prisoners, whom the fortune of war
had thrown into the power of Great Britain; and he believed the present
law should be confined to persons who should be captured by vessels of
the United States. And it would be most effectual in this way; because
if it were to operate against other French citizens in this country, the
French Government would not be concerned about it, since ninety-nine out
of a hundred of those citizens are probably emigrants, or persons for
whose safety they have no interest.

If by meeting every hostile act of the French Government by a measure of
a similar kind, we could render this country more respectable, Mr. G.
should be in favor of it; but, in the present case, he did not think the
measure applicable. There was a great difference, he said, between
measures of hostility and retaliation. Measures of retaliation could do
no good, except as preventives; and as the decree in question had
already been two years in force without being carried into effect, it
could scarcely be expected that it would now be exercised.

It must be allowed, Mr. G. said, that some change had taken place in our
situation with respect to France; but it seemed as if gentlemen wished,
by the passing of this bill, to take off any impression of this kind
which might have been made on the people by the late appointment of
Ministers to treat with France. Mr. G. did not mean to express any
opinion on the probable issue of that nomination. He believed the
PRESIDENT had taken certain measures; and that nothing which he could do
or say would either accelerate or delay those measures. He wished to
leave them uncontrolled, to have the effect they may, whatever it may
be. Yet, in relation to what had been said with respect to Guadaloupe,
he believed that captures had taken place; yet, when we speak of
information, there was a letter written by one of the commanders of our
vessels, which says, that a number of vessels go there for the purpose
of being taken, in order to carry on a trade contrary to the laws of the
United States. [The SPEAKER called to order.] Mr. G. said he was about
to conclude. He considered this bill as calculated to have but little
effect, and had it not been for the arguments of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, he should have been at a loss to have known for what
reason it was passed.

Mr. DANA said, "with what measure you mete, the same shall be measured
to you again," was a doctrine long since established. It was a doctrine
which injured man had assumed in all countries, and the justice of which
had been universally admitted.

An appeal to this national sentiment, and to the writers on this
subject, would be a sufficient answer to the gentleman's humanity for
Frenchmen, to the forgetfulness of his fellow-citizens.

The general principles of the law are too just to be questioned. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania, well knowing that the national feelings of
man must approve of the principle, undertakes to distinguish away the
subject. Instead of coming forward to the point, he has gone into
complaints against British inhumanity. But why speak of British
inhumanity, if not to embarrass this bill? This bill is intended against
the French nation. If the gentleman wished a similar law against the
British, neither he nor his followers could be suspected of any
attachment to that nation, which would have prevented him or them from
bringing forward such a measure. The gentleman knew such a measure would
be embarrassed with difficulties; and, if it failed, it would deprive
him of the argument he now makes use of. Shall we, said Mr. D., because
our seamen have been first injured by Great Britain, when France uses
them still worse, abandon them? Because they have been once injured with
impunity, shall we turn our backs upon them for ever? The doctrine is
too inhuman, too absurd, to be countenanced.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania assigns another reason against this
bill. To make it effectual he says certain information must be given to
the PRESIDENT, viz: that the person ill-treated is an American seaman;
and that he has received his ill-treatment in pursuance of a decree of
the French Government. Has the gentleman to learn that, when the
officers of the French Government do an act of violence, which the
principles of humanity and the law of nations condemn, if the nation
does not punish its officers for the act, it must be done in pursuance
of the orders of Government?

The gentleman's other objection was honorable to Americans. It was that
the humanity of the PRESIDENT, and of the people of this country, would
not suffer the law, if passed, to be carried into effect. Mr. D. said it
was difficult to reason on this subject, but, admitting the fact, it
affords a decisive proof that this power will never be abused, and at
the worst, the law could only be ineffectual, and it might have the good
effect of preventing the unprincipled murder of our countrymen.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania had said that the decree of the British
Cabinet might have had some effect in procuring a suspension of the
decree of the Executive Directory.

[Mr. GALLATIN denied having said that the French Government had
suspended their decree on account of the threats of the British. Mr.
King's first letter is dated the 27th of November, and his second,
mentioning the suspension of the decree, the 28th, so that that was
impossible.]

The gentleman has taken an opportunity of referring to the note of Lord
Grenville. If the gentleman was disposed to make a philippic against
Lord Grenville, Mr. D. said, he had no reason to vindicate him; but,
when the gentleman went so far beside the question to do it, it showed
he had little respect for his audience. But the gentleman from
Pennsylvania was certainly incorrect, when he said the note of Lord
Grenville was a direct admission that impressed American seamen were
held on board the British fleet. He would state a case in which American
seamen would be liable to the effects of the French decree, where the
British Government could not be censurable. Suppose an American vessel
captured and plundered by the French, and some of our seamen, to escape
the severities of a French dungeon, had escaped and got on board of a
British ship of war, hoping by that means, in time, to get to their own
country. Such cases, he had no doubt, had happened, and in such, the
gentleman must allow, our citizens must be liable to suffer as pirates,
without any blame resting on the conduct of the British.

Mr. OTIS said, it had been so long unfashionable to vindicate the
conduct of France, or to make apologies in her behalf, that those who
now wished to do it, attempt to excite hatred against another nation.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has gone altogether upon this principle.
He has said but little against the principle of the bill. His only
objection to it was that it was not sufficiently extensive. Admitting
the injuries to exist with respect to Great Britain, and that many of
our seamen have been impressed by them, did the gentleman wish us to
retaliate by impressing British seamen? No, he would be the first to
oppose such a law; and yet this is the only just kind of retaliation
that could be adopted, for he would not wish us, because the British
have impressed our seamen, to put the first British subject we meet to
death; and to talk of impressing their seamen, would be perfectly
ridiculous.

It was not incumbent upon him, Mr. O. said, to enter into any argument
to distinguish between the injuries which we have received from the
French and British Governments, nor to palliate the conduct of any
nation which has done us wrong; but when things perfectly clear are
violently distorted, to excite undue prejudices, with a view of
diverting the attention of the House from the subject before them, it
becomes necessary to notice the attempt. Let it be granted that Great
Britain impresses our seamen; she renounces every right to do so. She
perseveres, it is true, in her right to reclaim her own seamen from on
board our vessels, and in making this claim, some abuses may have taken
place.

If the gentleman from Pennsylvania had seen fit to do justice to Lord
Grenville, he would have turned to another document laid before Congress
by the Secretary of State last year, wherein he says that Great Britain
had never assumed the principle of impressing American seamen. His
friend from South Carolina (Mr. PINCKNEY) affirmed what he said, and
showed that the great difficulty was in preventing false passports from
being given. This was verified in the conduct of Captain Loring and the
Baltimore sloop of war. The difference, Mr. O. said, between the conduct
of France and Great Britain towards us was palpable. Great Britain
never refused to rectify grievances; she never heaped outrages upon us.
If she had, he should have been for vengeance and war against that
country, and the cry would certainly have been echoed by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.

Mr. O. said he disdained that sort of sensibility which his friend from
Connecticut (Mr. DANA) seemed to think redounded to the honor of the
people of this country. He owned it would not wound his feelings, in the
smallest degree, to see the law of retaliation executed upon any French
citizen in America. If one American citizen fell a sacrifice to the
decree of France, it would altogether absorb his sympathies for
Frenchmen. There is a French citizen, said he, now living in the
neighborhood of New York, who originally came here as Ambassador from
the French Republic; and I must say that I should not feel the least
sensibility if he should fall a victim to this law! Indeed, there were
French citizens enough on whom to execute the law; though he joined
gentlemen on all sides of the House in hoping that there would be no
occasion to carry it into effect.

The gentleman from New York says that a law of this kind ought not to be
passed, except in time of war; and yet, said Mr. O., the gentleman will
not let us go to war, and in the mean time our citizens may suffer with
impunity under the bloody decrees of France. But he believed Congress
had clearly the power, from those words of the constitution which say,
"they shall grant letters of marque and reprisal"--reprisal, doubtless,
not only against ships, but against property and persons, to pass a law
of this kind. Mr. O. thought it necessary, therefore, to show to the
French Republic that we are not negotiating through fear; that we are
desirous of keeping peace with all the world, so long as we can do it
consistent with our honor and independence; but no longer.

Mr. S. SMITH wished to have postponed this bill till the next session.
He thought it improper as it originally stood; as the decree which was
passed two years ago was never acted upon. Indeed he had somewhere seen
that American seamen were released on application of Mr. Skipwith, our
Consul in France. The bill, as amended, is far less objectionable, yet
he wished it were postponed till next session, because he never wished
to see a law of this kind on our code. He agreed with the gentleman from
Connecticut that it was legalizing murder.

Mr. S. believed the gentleman from Massachusetts mistaken in many
respects. He himself believed France was disposed to make peace. Mr. S.
proposed an amendment to the bill confining the retaliation to persons
captured in pursuance of any of the laws of the United States. If this
amendment was agreed to, the bill would be less exceptionable; for,
though the gentleman from Massachusetts had said he should not regret
the murder of any French citizen, under this law, nothing surely but the
heat of argument could have led him to say this; he must own he should:
nor did he believe that that gentleman, or any other, could lay hold of
an unfortunate Frenchman, and put him to death, though one of our
citizens might have suffered unjustly and cruelly in France.

The amendment was carried.

Mr. MACON did not wish to see this law in our code. In his opinion
nothing but the utmost necessity ought to induce us to pass it. Nor
could he believe that the gentleman from Massachusetts could see any
man, even if taken in arms, put to death in cold blood! Though it might
be right to punish those who passed the decree, if they could be laid
hold of, it was a mournful thing to retaliate upon innocent persons the
offences of the guilty.

The gentleman from Connecticut had quoted a scriptural passage--"With
the same measure that you mete, the same shall be measured unto you." In
the same volume, Mr. M. said, he would also find, "Do unto others as ye
would they should do unto you;" and a law of this kind could not be
justified upon the latter principle.

It is said we ought to show that we do not act from fear. He thought
this one of the last measures the House should pass to evince that. Mr.
M. hoped, that on the last evening of the session, a bill of this kind
would not be pressed. The members had heretofore been accustomed to part
in good humor, at the close of the session, however they might have
differed in the course of it. He hoped they should not now depart from
this custom. He therefore moved to postpone the bill till next session.

The question for postponement was negatived--48 to 37.

After a few observations from Mr. MCDOWELL, against the bill, it was
ordered to be read a third time and passed--yeas 56, nays 30.

A motion was made by Mr. LIVINGSTON, to adjourn till ten in the morning,
as it would be impossible to get through the business to-night, and he
understood the Senate were about to adjourn to that time.

Mr. DANA proposed to adjourn till seven in the evening; but that motion
being negatived, the House adjourned till ten o'clock on Sunday morning.


SUNDAY MORNING, March 3.

Several reports were made by the Committee of Enrolment, and sundry
messages communicated from the Senate relative to the bills in their
passage.


_Vote of Thanks._

Mr. CHAMPLIN rose and addressed the House as follows:

"Sensible as I am of the importance of the duties that at all times
attach to a gentleman who presides over the deliberations of this
assembly, and more especially in times of imminent danger; impressed
with the able and honorable manner in which those duties have been
discharged by the gentleman who now fills the chair; and believing the
sentiments I entertain on this occasion to be in perfect unison with
those of every member of this House--I beg leave to submit a resolution
expressive of the sense of the House on this subject:"

He then moved the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That the thanks of this House be presented to
      Jonathan Dayton, in testimony of their approbation of his
      conduct in discharging the arduous and important duties
      assigned him whilst in the chair."

This motion was received by the Clerk, and the question being put upon
it by him, there appeared for it 40, against it 22.

The resolution being carried, the SPEAKER rose and addressed the House
as follows:

      No language, gentlemen, can do justice to those feelings
      which this second vote of approbation of my conduct, after
      four years' presidency in the House of Representatives, has
      excited in my breast. It would be unjust in me not to
      acknowledge, that to the support uniformly afforded, and to
      the confidence unremittedly reposed in me, rather than to
      any merit of my own, is to be ascribed the success with
      which you are pleased to declare that the duties of the
      chair have been executed.

      Permit me to say, that far from being displeased, I have,
      on the contrary, been very much gratified at hearing that
      the resolution of thanks has not been passed, as a mere
      matter of form, unanimously. As in all public bodies, there
      have ever been found men whose approbation must be
      considered by the meritorious as a censure, so in this
      body, there are, unhappily, some whose censure will be
      regarded by all whose esteem I value, as the highest
      testimony of merit. About to abandon the seat which I have
      held in this branch of the General Legislature for eight
      successive years, I take advantage of the moment which
      precedes our separation to bid you, gentlemen, an
      affectionate farewell.

Mr. MACON moved the usual resolution appointing a joint committee with
the Senate, to inform the PRESIDENT, that Congress is ready to adjourn
without day, unless he has any further communication to make them; which
being agreed to, Messrs. OTIS, MACON, and BROOKS, were appointed a
committee on the part of this House.

Mr. OTIS, from the committee appointed to wait upon the PRESIDENT,
informed the House that they had performed that service; and he informed
them "that he had no further communication to make, except to express
his wish for the health and happiness of the members, and a pleasant
journey home to their families and friends."

The SPEAKER then adjourned the House without day.


NOTE.

The fifth Congress, the first under the administration of Mr. John
Adams, was wholly occupied with measures of defence against France, and
incurred debt and taxes in these preparations which greatly impaired its
popularity, and contributed to the overthrow of the federal party: but
there was great necessity for these exertions at that time, and both
national honor, and national interest, and national safety required them
to be made. Besides the insults which went to our honor, and the
depredations which affected our commerce, there were threats of attack
and invasion not to be despised. The Directory, inflated with the
successes of Buonaparte in Italy, with the subjugation of several small
powers, the transformation of several principalities and kingdoms into
republics, the peace with the Emperor of Germany, the neutralization of
some kingdoms and the alliance of others: exalted with so much success,
and anxious to bring the United States into their system and especially
into the war with Great Britain, had recourse to all the means of
accomplishing its purpose--first, by entreaties; afterwards by insults
and outrages; and finally by threats of war. It is difficult for general
history to give a view of these proceedings, and it is only in
contemporary sources that they can be adequately studied. The Debates of
Congress are one, and the largest one, of these sources; documents on
which the debates are founded are another: and it is often desirable, in
after time, to produce these documents in greater extent than used in
the debate. That is the case with these debates on French affairs during
the time of which we speak, and the communications of our Ministers sent
to Paris furnish the documentary evidence necessary to complete
them--evidence too well known to require copious quotation at the time,
but now little known to the subsequent generation. This note then, in
the nature of an appendix to the debates of the fifth Congress, will
contain extracts from the dispatches of the Ministers of that day: and
first of General Pinckney.

Arriving at Paris the 5th of December 1796, he immediately waited on the
Minister of Exterior Relations (Citizen Charles De la Croix) in company
with Mr. Monroe, according to an appointment previously made, and had an
interview with him; of which he gives this account in a dispatch to Mr.
Pickering, Secretary of State: (_Extracts only are given._)

      Mr. Monroe and myself, with my secretary, Major Rutledge,
      about two o'clock, waited upon M. De la Croix, and I was
      introduced by Mr. Monroe as the person appointed as his
      successor. The Minister at first received us with great
      stiffness, but afterwards, on our conversing on some
      general subjects, he unbent and behaved with civility; and,
      on receiving the official copies of our letter of credence
      and recall, said he would deliver them, without delay, to
      the Directory. He desired Major Rutledge to let him have
      our names of baptism, and our ages, that cards of
      hospitality might be made out, which he said were necessary
      to reside here unmolested. This requisition was immediately
      complied with, and he promised to send the cards the next
      morning. When this interview was known, the reports which
      had been spread abroad before my arrival, of my not being
      received by the Directory, vanished, and the general idea
      seemed to be that there would be no objection to receive me
      as Minister from America. At 11 o'clock, on Monday,
      December 12, Mr. Prevost (Mr. Monroe's secretary) called
      upon me, and told me that Mr. Monroe had just received a
      letter from M. De la Croix, and desired to know if I had
      received one. I said no. He then showed me M. De la Croix's
      to Mr. Monroe, which was as follows: [_Date, Dec. 9._

      CITIZEN MINISTER: I hasten to lay before the Executive
      Directory the copies of your letters of recall, and of the
      letter of credence of Mr. Pinckney, whom the PRESIDENT OF
      THE UNITED STATES has appointed to succeed you, in the
      quality of Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States
      near the French Republic. The Directory has charged me to
      notify you "that it will not acknowledge nor receive
      another Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States,
      until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the
      American Government, and which the French Republic has a
      right to expect from it." [_Date, Dec. 11._

I waited until next morning, expecting to receive a notification from M.
De la Croix, when, not hearing from him, I wrote him the following
letter:

      CITIZEN MINISTER: Colonel Monroe has been so good as to
      communicate to me your letter to him of the 21st Frimaire,
      wherein you inform him that you had submitted to the
      Executive Directory his letters of recall, and my letters
      of credence as Minister Plenipotentiary from the United
      States of America, and that the Directory had instructed
      you to notify him "qu'il ne reconnoitra et ne recevra plus
      de Ministre Plenipotentiaire des Etats Unis jusqu'après le
      redressement des griefs demandé au Gouvernement Americain,
      et que la République Françoise est en droit d'en attendre."
      [That it will not acknowledge nor receive any Minister
      Plenipotentiary from the United States, until after the
      redress of the grievances demanded of the American
      Government, and which the French Republic has a right to
      expect from it.] This communication has filled me with real
      sorrow, as I am thoroughly convinced that the sentiments of
      America and its Government--for they are one--are
      misunderstood, and that I am not permitted even to attempt
      to explain them, or, in the terms of my letters of
      credence, to endeavor "to efface unfavorable impressions,
      to banish suspicions, and to restore that cordiality which
      was at once the evidence and pledge of a friendly union."
      Devoted, as I am, to the liberty, prosperity, and
      independence of my own country, the freedom, happiness, and
      perfect establishment of the French Republic, have always
      been dear to me, and to have been instrumental in cementing
      the good understanding which, from the commencement of
      their alliance, has subsisted between the two nations,
      would have been the height of my ambition. I most fervently
      pray that there may be a speedy and candid investigation of
      those points in which you differ from us, that affection
      may banish distrust, and that the alliance of the two
      Republics may be perpetual.

      In your letter to Colonel Monroe you do not desire him to
      make any communication to me, and I am indebted to his
      politeness for the knowledge I have of the intentions of
      the Directory. I submit to you, citizen Minister, that, as
      the letters of recall had been received by Mr. Monroe, and
      official copies of his letters of recall, and my letters of
      credence, had been delivered to you, that the sentiments of
      the Directory should be communicated by you immediately to
      me, that I may, without delay, transmit them as from the
      Executive of this Republic to the Government of the United
      States; and that I may be informed by you, whether it is
      the intention of the Directory that I should immediately
      quit the territories of the Republic, or whether I and my
      family may remain until I hear from my Government. As I
      have not received the cards which, in your interview, you
      said I ought to possess in order to enable me to reside
      here, and that they should be transmitted to me next
      morning, I am the more doubtful on this subject than I
      should otherwise be. Accept my best wishes. [_Dec. 13._

This letter I sent by Major Rutledge, who delivered it to M. De la
Croix, and made the following report of what passed between them, which
he immediately reduced to writing:

      "I this day waited upon M. De la Croix, the Minister for
      Foreign Affairs, at two o'clock, as bearer of a letter from
      General Pinckney. I was admitted immediately on sending in
      my name, and delivered the letter. Having informed him from
      whom it came, and that there was a French translation
      annexed, he opened it and proceeded to read the letter in
      my presence, which, when he had finished, he desired me to
      return to General Pinckney as his answer: That the
      Executive Directory knew of no Minister Plenipotentiary
      from the United States of America, since the presentation
      of Mr. Monroe's letters of recall, and that the Executive
      Directory had charged him to notify to Mr. Monroe (here he
      read the quotation contained in the letter) qu'il ne
      reconnoitra et ne recevra plus de Ministre Plenipotentiaire
      des Etats Unis, jusqu'après le redressement des griefs
      demandé au Gouvernement Americain, et que la République
      Françoise est en droit d'en attendre. Which notification
      the Directory relied upon Mr. Monroe's imparting to his own
      Government, as well as communicating to General Pinckney."

      On the 25th of Frimaire, (15th of December,) about three
      o'clock in the afternoon, a Mr. Giraudet called on me, and
      said he was chief secretary in the Department of Foreign
      Affairs; that he came on the part of the Minister of
      Foreign Affairs, to signify to me that, with respect to my
      letter to him, (which he produced, together with the
      translation,) he could not directly communicate with me on
      it, as such direct communication would be acknowledging me
      as Minister, when the Directory had determined not to
      receive me; that, as to the other part of my letter,
      relative to remaining here, that he supposed I was
      acquainted with the laws of France, as they applied to
      strangers. I told him that I was not acquainted with the
      local laws of the Republic; he said that there was a
      decree which prevented all foreigners from remaining at
      Paris without particular permission, which, as the
      Directory did not mean to grant to me, of course the
      general law would operate. I answered, that I could not
      conceive the having a direct communication with me would
      involve the consequences he stated; that if Mr. Monroe had
      died before my arrival, the information that they would not
      acknowledge me, must, of course, have been made to myself.
      Mr. Monroe having received his letter of recall from our
      Government, could not now act officially any more than if
      he had ceased to exist; that I was indebted to Mr. Monroe's
      politeness for the information I had received of the
      intention of the Directory not to acknowledge me, but that
      he had not intended it as an official communication. That,
      with regard to the laws of France relative to strangers,
      the law which he had cited did not apply to the requisition
      of my letter, which was to know whether it was the
      intention of the Directory that I should quit the
      territories of the Republic; or whether I might remain here
      until I should hear from my Government. He said he rather
      believed that it was the intention that I should quit the
      territories of the Republic; but, as it admitted of a
      doubt, he would mention it to the Minister, with whom he
      was to dine, and acquaint me with the result in the
      evening. I told him I should be obliged to him, should it
      be the intention of the Directory that I should quit the
      Republic, to inform me in what time I was to set out, as my
      baggage was not arrived from Bordeaux; that I meant not to
      ask any personal favor, but to have the intention of the
      Directory clearly expressed, as it related to me, in the
      situation in which I came to France. He said he would, and
      expressed a regret at being the bearer of disagreeable
      information, and then departed. His behavior and manners
      were very polite.

      In the evening, about eight o'clock, he returned, and
      informed me that, in answer to the doubt which had been
      entertained in the morning, (a doubt, he observed, which
      had proceeded from his own inattention to the words of M.
      De la Croix,) the Minister could only reply that he
      understood the Directory to mean the territory of the
      Republic, and not Paris alone, which was to be quitted;
      that as to the time in which it was necessary to depart,
      the Minister could not designate it, but that he would have
      another communication with the Directory, and that their
      intentions should be made known to me in a more explicit
      manner upon both points; that, at the same time, he must
      inform me that, in all probability, M. De la Croix would
      not be the organ through which they would be addressed, as
      the Minister of the _Police Générale_ would be the officer
      under whose department my case would come. I replied that I
      apprehended M. De la Croix was the proper organ through
      which information should come to me, as he knew the
      capacity in which I had come to France; whereas, the
      Minister of Police might regard me as a mere stranger, and
      throw me into confinement; that it was in the power of the
      Directory to receive me, or not: but they could not divest
      themselves of the knowledge which they had of the public
      character in which I came to France; and that, in that
      character, I was entitled to the protection of the laws of
      nations, whether the Directory received me or not. If they
      permitted me to remain until I heard from my Government, I
      was under the protection of those laws; if they ordered me
      to quit the territories of the Republic, I was still
      entitled to letters of safe conduct, and passports on my
      journey out; that this was the case even with Ministers of
      belligerent powers, much more ought it to apply between us,
      who were at peace. Since this conversation, I have not
      heard from the Directory, or any of the Ministers or their
      agents. My situation, as you may easily conceive, is
      unpleasant; but if I can ultimately render any services to
      my country, I shall be fully compensated: at all events, it
      shall be my study to avoid increasing the discontent of
      this Government, without committing the honor, dignity, and
      respect due to our own. Should I fail in doing this, or
      should I err in the measures I pursue to accomplish it, the
      failing will not be in my zeal, but should be charged to my
      want of ability. At present, I think the ground I have
      taken has puzzled them: they wish me gone, but they
      apprehend that it would be too harsh a measure to send off,
      in a peremptory manner, the Minister of my country; though
      there is no saying what their conduct will ultimately be,
      as I am informed that they have already sent off thirteen
      foreign Ministers: and a late emigrant, now here, has
      assured them that America is not of greater consequence to
      them, nor ought to be treated with greater respect, than
      Geneva or Genoa. Those who regard us as being of some
      consequence, seem to have taken up an idea that our
      Government acts upon principles opposed to the real
      sentiments of a large majority of our people, and they are
      willing to temporize until the event of the election of
      President is known; thinking that, if one public character
      is chosen, he will be attached to the interest of Great
      Britain; and that, if another character is elected, he will
      be (to use the expression of Du Pont de Nemours, in the
      Council of Ancients) devoted to the interest of France;
      entertaining the humiliating idea that we are a people
      divided by party, the mere creatures of foreign influence,
      and regardless of our national character, honor, and
      interest.

      I have seen Mr. Monroe very often since my arrival: his
      conduct has been open and candid, and I believe he has made
      me every communication which he thought would be of service
      to our country. He undoubtedly felt himself hurt at his
      being superseded; but I am convinced he has not, on that
      account, left any thing undone which he thought would
      promote the objects of my mission. The Directory and
      Ministers had, for some time before they were informed of
      his removal, treated him with great coolness; but as soon
      as they heard of his recall, their attentions to him were
      renewed. Should this Government attempt to make any further
      communications to me, through him, he has promised me to
      inform them that he cannot comply with their desire, as his
      powers have ceased. I remain, with great respect, &c.
      [_Dec. 15._

Major Rutledge having called on the Minister of Exterior Relations on
another affair, and finished, inquired of the Minister if he had heard
any thing further from the Directory, in relation to General Pinckney's
remaining where he was:

      "He answered, with marks of great surprise, that he thought
      he had already explained himself with sufficient clearness
      on the subject; that he had signified to General Pinckney,
      long since, the impossibility of his staying; that he
      thought he had exercised much "condescendance" in having
      been so long silent; which he had been induced to do by
      General Pinckney's having complained of the delay of his
      baggage, which, he supposed, must, by this time, have
      arrived from Bordeaux; that, in short, he should be sorry
      if his further stay should compel him to give information
      to the Minister of the Police. To this I replied, that
      General Pinckney had refused to regard himself in any other
      light than the one in which he had entered France, which
      had not been in a private capacity, but in a public
      character; which circumstance had been officially announced
      to the Directory, by his having delivered to the Minister
      of Foreign Affairs a copy of his letters of credence and by
      other acts. That this precluded all laws relative to
      strangers from operating on him, and put him under the
      protection of the law of nations, which he claimed in his
      favor. That Mr. Giraudet had taken leave with a promise to
      communicate to the Minister of Foreign Affairs the ground
      which General Pinckney had taken. That he returned again in
      the evening, and then said, that the Minister would again
      lay General Pinckney's letter before the Directory, and
      that their intentions should be made known to him as soon
      as possible. All this had, no doubt, been faithfully
      related to him by his secretary. He answered that General
      Pinckney must have mistaken Mr. Giraudet as to his
      intention of again laying his letter before the Directory.
      I told him that it was impossible; for that I had been
      present at both conversations, in which the material points
      had passed in English, and been repeated in French. He then
      said Mr. Giraudet had acted without his authority. I
      replied, that General Pinckney had, however, waited until
      this moment in expectation of hearing from him, agreeably
      to Mr. Giraudet's promise; that he was very far from
      intending to dispute the will of the Executive Directory;
      what he wanted was a communication of their wishes in
      writing. He said that it had already been given. I desired
      to know when; he answered in the notification which he had
      made, by their order, to Mr. Monroe; that it had contained
      their sentiments on Mr. Pinckney's staying, inasmuch as
      that his not being received, implied that he should depart.
      I denied that it was a fair deduction; he insisted that it
      was; I declared that it had not struck General Pinckney or
      any person with whom he had conversed; but that, however,
      if such was the construction which he had put upon it, I
      flattered myself that he could have no objection to
      throwing his idea upon paper, that General Pinckney might
      have something more substantial, than the authenticity of
      the word of his secretary to justify himself to his own
      Government, for quitting a spot to which he had come in
      obedience to their orders. The Minister here turned from me
      with some warmth, and said that he should do no such thing;
      that General Pinckney might make his own deductions; he
      desired to have no more communication with him. I only
      replied by a bow, satisfied to end a conversation which had
      already lasted near half an hour; during which I had not
      been admitted to the honor of a seat." [_Dec. 26._

The written order to quit the territory of the Republic did not come:
General Pinckney would not depart without it: the _Police Générale_ did
not molest him; two months elapsed, when Buonaparte having gained a
great victory over the Austrians in Italy, the day after the arrival of
the news of it in Paris, he received the following notification from the
Minister, De la Croix:

      "The Executive Directory has charged me to make known to
      you, that not having obtained special permission to reside
      at Paris, you are amenable to the law which obliges
      foreigners to quit the territory of the Republic. I had
      the honor of informing you near two months ago, by the
      principal Secretary of my department, of the intentions of
      the Government in this respect. I cannot dispense with
      notifying you of them to-day. Receive, sir, &c." [_Feb. 1,
      1797._

To which General Pinckney immediately returned this answer:

      CITIZEN MINISTER: I did not receive, until 3 o'clock
      to-day, your note in date of the 6th inst., informing me
      that the Directory had charged you to acquaint me, that not
      having obtained particular permission to reside at Paris, I
      was subject to the law which obliged strangers to quit the
      territory of the Republic. I intimated to you some time
      since, by the Secretary General of your department, and by
      Major Rutledge, my Secretary, that I deemed a notification
      of this sort, in writing, from you necessary, previous to
      my departure. Having now received it, I shall, without
      delay, prepare to go, and, in the meanwhile, will be
      obliged to you for the necessary passports for myself and
      family, with our baggage, to quit the Republic, in my way
      to Holland. Accept, citizen Minister, &c.

This notification was addressed to "_Mr. Pinckney, Anglo-American_,"
upon which designation of his nationality, and the supposed motives for
giving the order to depart so suddenly after having been so long
delayed, General Pinckney remarks:

      I should have made some observation on being termed
      Anglo-American, but, on inquiry, I found it was customary
      to call all my countrymen so, to distinguish us from the
      inhabitants of St. Domingo and the other French West India
      islands. I have received my passports, and shall, in two
      days, set out for Amsterdam. I know not what has occasioned
      this determination of the Directory after having permitted
      me to remain here so long a time from their refusal to
      acknowledge me. You will judge whether the answer of the
      Senate and the House of Representatives to the President's
      Speech, and the late successes in Italy have not concurred
      to occasion it. Mr. De la Croix assured Major Rutledge,
      that he acted by the express orders of the Directory in
      this particular, and not from himself.

General Pinckney remained in Holland till the autumn of '97, when
_Messrs._ Marshall and Gerry were joined with him in an extraordinary
mission, and all three proceeded to Paris. Arrived there, they asked an
interview with the Minister of Foreign Relations, now changed to the
astute and supple Talleyrand--obtained it--and thus describe it in their
dispatch to Mr. Pickering, the Secretary of State:

      The Minister, we found, was then engaged with the
      Portuguese Minister, who retired in about ten minutes, when
      we were introduced and produced the copy of our letters of
      credence, which the Minister perused and kept. He informed
      us "that the Directory had required him to make a report
      relative to the situation of the United States with regard
      to France, which he was then about, and which would be
      finished in a few days, when he would let us know what
      steps were to follow." We asked if cards of hospitality
      were in the mean time necessary? He said they were, and
      that they should be delivered to us; and he immediately
      rung for his secretary and directed him to make them out.

This interview with Talleyrand being over, a game of intrigue,
impudence, venality and corruption was immediately commenced upon the
American Ministers, by the intimates and agents of Talleyrand, which has
but few parallels in history, and of which they give this account:

      On Saturday, the 14th, Major Mountflorence (U. S. Consul
      General in Paris,) informed General Pinckney that he had a
      conversation with Mr. Osmond, the private and confidential
      secretary of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who told him
      that the Directory were greatly exasperated at some parts
      of the President's Speech at the opening of the last
      session of Congress, and would require an explanation of
      them from us. The particular parts were not mentioned. In
      another conversation on the same day, the secretary
      informed the Major that the Minister had told him it was
      probable we should not have a public audience of the
      Directory till such time as our negotiation was finished;
      that probably persons might be appointed to treat with us,
      but they would report to him, and he would have the
      direction of the negotiation. The Major did not conceal
      from Mr. Osmond his intention to communicate these
      conversations to us.

      In the morning of October the 13th, Mr. W., of the house of
      ----, called on General Pinckney and informed him that a
      Mr. X., who was in Paris, and whom the General had seen, *
      * * * was a gentleman of considerable credit and
      reputation, * * * * and that we might place great reliance
      on him.

      In the evening of the same day, Mr. X. called on General
      Pinckney, and after having sat some time, * * * * whispered
      him that he had a message from M. Talleyrand to communicate
      when he was at leisure. General Pinckney immediately
      withdrew with him into another room; and when they were
      alone, Mr. X. said that he was charged with a business in
      which he was a novice; that he had been acquainted with M.
      Talleyrand, * * * * and that he was sure he had a great
      regard for [America] and its citizens; and was very
      desirous that a reconciliation should be brought about with
      France; that, to effect that end, he was ready, if it was
      thought proper, to suggest a plan, confidentially, that M.
      Talleyrand expected would answer the purpose. General
      Pinckney said he should be glad to hear it. Mr. X. replied
      that the Directory, and particularly two of the members of
      it, were exceedingly irritated at some passages of the
      President's Speech, and desired that they should be
      softened, and that this step would be necessary previous to
      our reception. That, besides this, a sum of money was
      required for the pocket of the Directory and Ministers,
      which would be at the disposal of M. Talleyrand; and that a
      loan would also be insisted on. M. X. said if we acceded to
      these measures, M. Talleyrand had no doubt that all our
      differences with France might be accommodated. On inquiry,
      M. X. could not point out the particular passages of the
      speech that had given offence, nor the quantum of the loan,
      but mentioned that the douceur for the pocket, was twelve
      hundred thousand livres, about fifty thousand pounds
      sterling. General Pinckney told him, that his colleagues
      and himself, from the time of their arrival here, had been
      treated with great slight and disrespect; that they
      earnestly wished for peace and reconciliation with France;
      and had been entrusted by their country with very great
      powers to obtain these ends on honorable terms; that, with
      regard to the propositions made, he could not even consider
      of them before he had communicated them to his colleagues;
      that, after he had done so, he should hear from him. After
      a communication and consultation had, it was agreed that
      General Pinckney should call on M. X. and request him to
      make his propositions to us all: and, for fear of mistake
      or misapprehension, that he should be requested to reduce
      the heads into writing. Accordingly, on the morning of
      October 19, General Pinckney called on M. X., who consented
      to see his colleagues in the evening, and to reduce his
      propositions to writing. He said his communication was not
      immediately with M. Talleyrand, but through another
      gentleman in whom M. Talleyrand had great confidence. This
      proved afterwards to be M. Y.

      At six in the evening, M. X. came and left with us the
      first set of propositions, which, translated from the
      French, are as follows: "A person who possesses the
      confidence of the Directory, on what relates to the affairs
      of America, convinced of the mutual advantages which would
      result from the re-establishment of the good understanding
      between the two nations, proposes to employ all of his
      influence to obtain this object. He will assist the
      Commissioners of the United States in all the demands which
      they may have to make from the Government of France,
      inasmuch as they may not be contradictory to those which he
      proposes himself to make, and of which the principal will
      be communicated confidentially. It is desired that, in the
      official communications, there should be given a softening
      turn to a part of the President's Speech to Congress, which
      has caused much irritation. It is feared, that in not
      satisfying certain individuals in this respect, they may
      give way to all their resentment. The nomination of
      Commissioners will be consented to on the same footing as
      they have been named in the treaty of America with England,
      to decide on the reclamations which individuals may make on
      the Government of France, or on French individuals. The
      payments which, agreeably to the decisions of the
      Commissioners, shall fall to the share of the French
      Government, are to be advanced by the American Government
      itself. It is desired that the funds which, by this means,
      shall enter again into the American trade, should be
      employed in new supplies for the French colonies.
      Engagements of this nature, on the part of individuals
      reclaiming, will always hasten, in all probability, the
      decisions of the French Commissioners; and, perhaps, it may
      be desired that this clause should make a part of the
      instructions which the Government of the United States
      should give to the Commissioners they may choose. The
      French Government desires, besides, to obtain a loan from
      the United States; but so that that should not give any
      jealousy to the English Government nor hurt the neutrality
      of the United States. This loan shall be masked by
      stipulating, that the Government of the United States
      consents to make the advances for the payment of the debts
      contracted by the agents of the French Government with the
      citizens of the United States, and which are already
      acknowledged, and the payment ordered by the Directory,
      without having been yet effectuated. There should be
      delivered a note to the amount of these debts. Probably
      this note may be accompanied by ostensible pieces, which
      will guarantee to the agents the responsibility of the
      United States, in case any umbrage should cause an inquiry.
      There shall also be first taken from this loan certain
      sums for the purpose of making the customary distributions
      in diplomatic affairs." The person of note mentioned in the
      minutes, who had the confidence of the Directory, he said,
      before us all, was M. Talleyrand. The amount of the loan he
      could not ascertain precisely, but understood it would be
      according to our ability to pay. The sum which would be
      considered as proper, according to diplomatic usage, was
      about twelve hundred thousand livres. He could not state to
      us what parts of the President's speech were excepted to,
      but said he would inquire and inform us. He agreed to
      breakfast with Mr. Gerry the morning of the 21st, in order
      to make such explanations as we had then requested, or
      should think proper to request; but, on the morning of the
      20th, M. X. called, and said that M. Y., the confidential
      friend of M. Talleyrand, instead of communicating with us
      through M. X., would see us himself and make the necessary
      explanations. We appointed to meet him the evening of the
      20th at seven o'clock, in General Marshall's room. At
      seven, M. Y. and M. X. entered; and the first mentioned
      gentleman, being introduced to us as the confidential
      friend of M. Talleyrand, immediately stated to us the
      favorable impression of that gentleman towards our
      country--impressions which were made by the kindness and
      civilities he had personally received in America. That,
      impressed by his solicitude to repay these kindnesses, he
      was willing to aid us in the present negotiation by his
      good offices with the Directory, who were, he said,
      extremely irritated against the Government of the United
      States, on account of some parts of the President's speech,
      and who had neither acknowledged nor received us, and
      consequently have not authorized M. Talleyrand to have any
      communications with us. The minister therefore could not
      see us himself, but had authorized his friend M. Y. to
      communicate to us certain propositions, and to receive our
      answers to them; and to promise, on his part, that if we
      would engage to consider them as the basis of the proposed
      negotiation, he would intercede with the Directory to
      acknowledge us, and to give us a public audience. M. Y.
      stated to us explicitly and repeatedly, that he was clothed
      with no authority; that he was not a diplomatic character;
      that he was not * * * * he was only the friend of M.
      Talleyrand, and trusted by him: that, with regard to
      himself, he had * * * and he earnestly wished well to the
      United States.

      On reading the speech (Mr. Adams' to Congress,) M. Y.
      dilated very much upon the keenness of the resentment it
      had produced, and expatiated largely on the satisfaction he
      said was indispensably necessary as a preliminary to
      negotiation. "But, said he, gentlemen, I will not disguise
      from you that this satisfaction being made, the essential
      part of the treaty remains to be adjusted; il faut de
      l'argent--il faut beaucoup d'argent;" _you must pay money,
      you must pay a great deal of money_. He spoke much of the
      force, the honor, and the jealous republican pride of
      France; and represented to us strongly the advantage which
      we should derive from the neutrality thus to be purchased.
      He said that the receipt of the money might be so disguised
      as to prevent its being considered as a breach of
      neutrality by England; and thus save us from being
      embroiled with that power. Concerning the twelve hundred
      thousand livres little was said; that being completely
      understood, on all sides, to be required for the officers
      of the Government, and, therefore, needing no further
      explanation. These propositions, he said, being considered
      as the admitted basis of the proposed treaty, M. Talleyrand
      trusted that, by his influence with the Directory, he could
      prevail on the Government to receive us. We asked whether
      we were to consider it as certain, that, without a previous
      stipulation to the effect required, we were not to be
      received. He answered that M. Talleyrand himself was not
      authorized to speak to us the will of the Directory, and
      consequently could not authorize him. The conversation
      continued until half after nine, when they left us; having
      engaged to breakfast with Mr. Gerry the next morning.

      October the 21st, M. X. came before nine o'clock; M. Y. did
      not come until ten: he had passed the morning with M.
      Talleyrand. After breakfast the subject was immediately
      resumed. He represented to us, that we were not yet
      acknowledged or received; that the Directory were so
      exasperated against the United States, as to have come to a
      determination to demand from us, previous to our reception,
      those disavowals, reparations, and explanations, which were
      stated at large last evening. He said that M. Talleyrand
      and himself were extremely sensible of the pain we must
      feel in complying with this demand; but that the Directory
      would not dispense with it; that, therefore, we must
      consider it as the indispensable preliminary to obtain our
      reception, unless we could find the means to change their
      determination in this particular; that if we satisfied the
      Directory in these particulars, a letter would be written
      to us to demand the extent of our powers, and to know
      whether we were authorized to place them precisely on the
      same footing with England. We required an explanation of
      that part of the conversation, in which M. Y. had hinted at
      our finding means to avert the demand concerning the
      President's speech. He answered, that he was not authorized
      to state those means, but that we must search for them and
      propose them ourselves. If, however, we asked his opinion
      as a private individual, and would receive it as coming
      from him, he would suggest to us the means which, in his
      opinion, would succeed. On being asked to suggest the
      means, he answered, _money_; that the Directory were
      jealous of its own honor and of the honor of the nation;
      that it insisted on receiving from us the same respect with
      which we had treated the King; that this honor must be
      maintained in the manner before required, unless we
      substituted, in the place of these reparations, something,
      perhaps more valuable, that was money. He said, further,
      that if we desired him to point out the sum, which he
      believed would be satisfactory, he would do so. We
      requested him to proceed; and he said that there were
      thirty-two millions of florins, of Dutch inscriptions,
      worth ten shillings in the pound, which might be assigned
      to us at twenty shillings in the pound; and he proceeded to
      state to us the certainty that, after a peace, the Dutch
      Government would repay us the money; so that we should
      ultimately lose nothing, and the only operation of the
      measure would be, an advance from us to France of
      thirty-two millions, on the credit of the Government of
      Holland. We asked him whether the fifty thousand pounds
      sterling as a _douceur_ to the Directory, must be in
      addition to this sum. He answered in the affirmative. We
      told him that, on the subject of the treaty, we had no
      hesitation in saying that our powers were ample; that, on
      the other points proposed to us, we would retire into
      another room, and return in a few minutes with our answer.

      We committed immediately to writing the answer we
      proposed, in the following words: "Our powers respecting a
      treaty are ample; but the proposition of a loan, in the
      form of Dutch inscriptions, or in any other form, is not
      within the limits of our instructions; upon this point,
      therefore, the Government must be consulted; one of the
      American Ministers will, for the purpose, forthwith embark
      for America; provided the Directory will suspend all
      further captures on American vessels; and will suspend
      proceedings on those already captured, as well where they
      have been already condemned, as where the decisions have
      not yet been rendered; and that where sales have been made,
      but the money not yet received by the captors, it shall not
      be paid until the preliminary questions, proposed to the
      Ministers of the United States, be discussed and decided;"
      which was read as a verbal answer, and we told them they
      might copy it if they pleased. M. Y. refused to do so; his
      disappointment was apparent; he said we treated the money
      part of the proposition as if it had proceeded from the
      Directory; whereas, in fact, it did not proceed even from
      the Minister, but was only a suggestion from himself, as a
      substitute to be proposed by us, in order to avoid the
      painful acknowledgment that the Directory had determined to
      demand of us. It was told him that we understood that
      matter perfectly; that we knew the proposition was in form
      to be ours; but that it came substantially from the
      Minister. We asked what had led to our present
      conversation? And General Pinckney then repeated the first
      communication from M. X., (to the whole of which that
      gentleman assented,) and we observed that those gentlemen
      had brought no testimonials of their speaking any thing
      from authority; but that, relying on the fair characters
      they bore, we had believed them when they said they were
      from the Minister, and had conversed with them, in like
      manner, as if we were conversing with M. Talleyrand
      himself; and that we could not consider any suggestion M.
      Y. had made as not having been previously approved of; but
      yet, if he did not choose to take a memorandum in writing
      of our answer, we had no wish that he should do so; and
      further, if he chose to give the answer to his proposition
      the form of a proposition from ourselves, we could only
      tell him that we had no other proposition to make, relative
      to any advance of money on our part; that America had
      sustained deep and heavy losses by the French depredations
      on our commerce, and that France had alleged so [many]
      complaints against the United States, that on those
      subjects we came fully prepared, and were not a little
      surprised to find France unwilling to hear us; and making
      demands upon us which could never have been suspected by
      our Government, and which had the appearance of our being
      the aggressing party. M. Y. expressed himself vehemently on
      the resentment of France; and complained that, instead of
      our proposing some substitute for the reparations demanded
      of us, we were stipulating certain conditions to be
      performed by the Directory itself; that he could not take
      charge of such propositions; and that the Directory would
      persist in its demand of those reparations which he at
      first stated. We answered that we could not help it; it was
      for the Directory to determine what course its own honor
      and the interests of France required it to pursue; it was
      for us to guard the interest and honor of our country. M.
      Y. observed that we had taken no notice of the first
      proposition, which was to know whether we were ready to
      make the disavowal, reparations, and explanations,
      concerning the President's speech. We told him that we
      supposed it to be impossible that either he, or the
      Minister, could imagine that such a proposition could
      require an answer; that we did not understand it as being
      seriously expected; but merely as introductory to the
      subjects of real consideration.

      He spoke of the respect which the Directory required, and
      repeated that it would exact as much as was paid to the
      ancient kings. We answered that America had demonstrated to
      the world, and especially to France, a much greater respect
      for her present Government than for her former monarchy:
      and that there was no evidence of this disposition which
      ought to be required, that we were not ready to give. He
      said that we should certainly not be received; and seemed
      to shudder at the consequences. We told him, that America
      had made every possible effort to remain on friendly terms
      with France--that she was still making them, that if France
      would not hear us, but would make war on the United States,
      nothing remained for us but to regret the unavoidable
      necessity of defending ourselves. [_Oct. 22._


No. 2.


                          OCTOBER 27, 1797.

      About twelve we received another visit from M. X. He
      immediately mentioned the great event announced in the
      papers, and then said, that some proposals from us had been
      expected on the subject on which we had before conversed:
      that the Directory were becoming impatient, and would take
      a decided course with regard to America, if we could not
      soften them. We answered, that on that subject we had
      already spoken explicitly, and had nothing further to add.
      He mentioned the change in the state of things which had
      been produced by the peace with the Emperor, as warranting
      an expectation of a change in our system; to which we only
      replied, that this event had been expected by us, and would
      not, in any degree, affect our conduct. M. X. urged, that
      the Directory had, since this peace, taken a higher and
      more decided tone with respect to us, and all other neutral
      nations, than had been before taken; that it had been
      determined, that all nations should aid them, or be
      considered and treated as their enemies. We answered, that
      such an effect had already been contemplated by us, as
      probable, and had not been overlooked when we gave to this
      proposition our decided answer; and further, that we had no
      powers to negotiate for a loan of money; that our
      Government had not contemplated such a circumstance in any
      degree whatever; that if we should stipulate a loan, it
      would be a perfectly void thing, and would only deceive
      France, and expose ourselves. M. X. again expatiated on the
      power and violence of France; he urged the danger of our
      situation, and pressed the policy of softening them, and of
      thereby obtaining time. M. X. again returned to the subject
      of money. Said he, you do not speak to the point; it is
      money: it is expected that you will offer money. We said
      that we had spoken to that point very explicitly: we had
      given an answer. No, said he, you have not: what is your
      answer? We replied, it is no; no; not a sixpence. He again
      called our attention to the dangers which threatened our
      country, and asked, if it would not be prudent, though we
      might not make a loan to the nation, to interest an
      influential friend in our favor. He said we ought to
      consider what men we had to treat with; that they
      disregarded the justice of our claims, and the reasoning
      with which we might support them; that they disregarded
      their own colonies, and considered themselves as perfectly
      invulnerable with respect to us; that we could only acquire
      an interest among them by a judicious application of money,
      and it was for us to consider, whether the situation of our
      country did not require that these means should be resorted
      to.

      He said that all the members of the Directory were not
      disposed to receive our money; that Merlin, for instance,
      was paid from another quarter, and would touch no part of
      the douceur which was to come from us. We replied, that we
      had understood that Merlin was paid by the owners of the
      privateers; and he nodded an assent to the fact. He
      proceeded to press this subject with vast perseverance. He
      told us that we had paid money to obtain peace with the
      Algerines and with the Indians; and that it was doing no
      more to pay France for peace. To this it was answered, that
      when our Government commenced a treaty with either Algiers
      or the Indian tribes, it was understood that money was to
      form the basis of the treaty, and was its essential
      article; that the whole nation knew it, and was prepared to
      expect it as a thing of course; but that in treating with
      France, our Government had supposed that a proposition,
      such as he spoke of, would, if made by us, give mortal
      offence. He asked if our Government did not know that
      nothing was to be obtained here without money? We replied,
      that our Government had not even suspected such a state of
      things. He appeared surprised at it, and said, that there
      was not an American in Paris who could not have given that
      information. The conversation continued for nearly two
      hours; and the public and private advance of money was
      pressed and re-pressed in a variety of forms. At length M.
      X. said that he did not blame us; that our determination
      was certainly proper, if we could keep it; but he showed
      decidedly his opinion to be that we could not keep it. He
      said that he would communicate, as nearly as he could, our
      conversation to the Minister, or to M. Y. to be given by
      him to the Minister; we are not certain which. We then
      separated. On the 22d of October, M. Z., a French gentleman
      of respectable character, informed Mr. Gerry, that M.
      Talleyrand, Minister of Foreign Relations, who professed to
      be well-disposed towards the United States, had expected to
      have seen the American Ministers frequently in their
      private capacities; and to have conferred with them
      individually on the object of their mission; and had
      authorized M. Z. to make this communication to Mr. Gerry.
      The latter sent for his colleagues; and a conference was
      held with M. Z. on the subject; in which General Pinckney
      and General Marshall expressed their opinions, that, not
      being acquainted with M. Talleyrand, they could not, with
      propriety, call on him; but that, according to the custom
      of France, he might expect this of Mr. Gerry, from a
      previous acquaintance in America. This Mr. Gerry
      reluctantly complied with on the 23d, and with M. Z. called
      on M. Talleyrand, who, not being then at his office,
      appointed the 28th for the interview. After the first
      introduction, M. Talleyrand began the conference. He said
      that the Directory had passed an arrêt, which he offered
      for perusal, in which they had demanded of the Envoys an
      explanation of some part, and a reparation for others, of
      the President's speech to Congress, of the 16th of May: he
      was sensible, he said, that difficulties would exist on the
      part of the Envoys relative to this demand; but that by
      their offering money, he thought he could prevent the
      effect of the arrêt. M. Z., at the request of Mr. Gerry,
      having stated that the Envoys have no such powers, M.
      Talleyrand replied, they can, in such a case, take a power
      on themselves; and proposed that they should make a loan. A
      courier arriving at this moment from Italy, and M.
      Talleyrand appearing impatient to read the letters, Mr.
      Gerry took leave of him immediately. He followed to the
      door, and desired M. Z. to repeat to Mr. Gerry what he, M.
      Talleyrand, had said to him. Mr. Gerry then returned to his
      quarters with M. Z., took down the particulars of this
      interview, as before stated, sent for Gens. Pinckney and
      Marshall, and read it to them in the presence of M. Z., who
      confirmed it. Generals Pinckney and Marshall then desired
      M. Z. to inform M. Talleyrand that they had nothing to add
      to this conference, and did not wish that the arrêt might
      be delayed on their account.

                          OCTOBER 29.

      M. X. again called upon us. He said M. Talleyrand was
      extremely anxious to be of service to us, and had requested
      that one more effort should be made to induce us to enable
      him to be so. A great deal of the same conversation which
      had passed at our former interviews was repeated. He said
      that, without this money, we should be obliged to quit
      Paris; and that we ought to consider the consequences: the
      property of the Americans would be confiscated, and their
      vessels in port embargoed. We told him that, unless there
      was a hope of a real reconciliation, these evils could not
      be prevented by us; and the little delay that we might
      obtain would only increase them; that our mission had
      induced many of our countrymen to trust their vessels in
      the ports of France; and if we remained at Paris, that very
      circumstance would increase their number; and,
      consequently, the injury which our countrymen would
      sustain, if France could permit herself so to violate her
      own engagements and the laws of nations. He expressed a
      wish, that M. Y. should see us once more. We told him that
      a visit from M. Y., as a private gentleman, would always be
      agreeable to us; but if he came only with the expectation
      that we should stipulate advances of money, without
      previously establishing a solid and permanent
      reconciliation, he might save himself the trouble of the
      application, because it was a subject we had considered
      maturely, and on which we were immovable. He parted with
      us, saying, if that was the case, it would not be worth
      while for M. Y. to come. In the evening, while General
      Pinckney and General Marshall were absent, M. Y. and M. X.
      called, and were invited by Mr. Gerry to breakfast with us
      the next morning.

                          OCTOBER 30.

      Immediately after breakfast the subject was resumed. M. Y.
      spoke without interruption for near an hour. He said that
      he was desirous of making a last effort to serve us, by
      proposing something which might accommodate the differences
      between the two nations; that what he was now about to
      mention, had not, by any means, the approbation of the
      Directory; nor could M. Talleyrand undertake further than
      to make from us the proposition to the Directory, and use
      his influence for its success; that, last week, M.
      Talleyrand could not have ventured to have offered such
      propositions; but that his situation had been very
      materially changed by the peace with the Emperor; by that
      peace he had acquired, in a high degree, the confidence of
      the Directory, and now possessed great influence with that
      body; that he was also closely connected with Buonaparte
      and the Generals of the Army in Italy, and was to be
      considered as firmly fixed in his post, at least for five
      or six months; that, under these circumstances, he could
      undertake to offer, in our behalf, propositions which,
      before this increase of influence, he could not have
      hazarded. M. Y. then called our attention to our own
      situation, and to the force France was capable of bringing
      to bear upon us. He said that we were the best judges of
      our capacity to resist, so far as depended on our own
      resources, and ought not to deceive ourselves on so
      interesting a subject. The fate of Venice was one which
      might befall the United States.

The American Ministers determined to have no more of these conferences,
and broke them off altogether; but shortly after, they were approached
indirectly and in a new way, as thus detailed by General Pinckney to his
Government:

      On the 14th of December, M. X. called on me, in order, as
      he said, to gain some information relative to some lands in
      * * *, purchased by * * *, for whom * * *. Soon afterwards,
      General Marshall came in, and then Mr. Gerry's carriage
      drove into the yard. Here is Mr. Gerry, said General
      Marshall. I am glad of it, said M. X., for I wished to meet
      all of you gentlemen, to inform you that M. Y. had another
      message to you from M. Talleyrand. I immediately expressed
      my surprise at it, as M. Talleyrand, M. Y., and he, all
      knew our determination to have no further communication on
      the subject of our mission with persons not officially
      authorized. He replied, that determination was made six
      weeks ago; and it was presumed that we had changed our
      opinion. I said that I had not, and I did not believe my
      colleagues had. At that moment Mr. Gerry entered the room,
      and I privately acquainted him with the object of M. X.'s
      visit. General Marshall, Mr. Gerry, and myself, then
      withdrew into another room, and immediately agreed to
      adhere to our former resolution. M. X. was then called in;
      when I acquainted him, in a few words, with our
      determination; and Mr. Gerry expatiated more at large on
      the propriety of our acting in this manner, and on the very
      unprecedented way in which we had been treated since our
      arrival.

      On the 20th of December, a lady, who is well acquainted
      with M. Talleyrand, expressed to me her concern that we
      were still in so unsettled a situation; but, adds she, why
      will you not lend us money? If you would but make us a
      loan, all matters would be adjusted; and, she added, when
      you were contending for your revolution, we lent you money.
      I mentioned the very great difference there was between the
      situation of the two countries at that period and the
      present, and the very different circumstances under which
      the loan was made us, and the loan was now demanded from
      us. She replied, we do not make a demand; we think it more
      delicate that the offer should come from you: but M.
      Talleyrand has mentioned to me (who am surely not in his
      confidence) the necessity of your making us a loan; and I
      know that he has mentioned it to two or three others; and
      that you have been informed of it; and I will assure you
      that, if you remain here six months longer, you would not
      advance a single step further in your negotiations without
      a loan. If that is the case, I replied, we may as well go
      away now. Why that, possibly, said she, might lead to a
      rupture, which you had better avoid; for we know we have a
      very considerable party in America, who are strongly in our
      interest.

The American Envoys having repulsed all these attempts, and refused to
listen longer to these intermediaries, two of them (Messrs. Pinckney and
Marshall) were furnished with their passports, and left France. Mr.
Gerry remained, and underwent many attempts to be inveigled into a
separate negotiation, all of which failed. In the mean time, (for half a
year had now been consumed in this intrigue,) the despatches of the
American Ministers had become public, exciting every where odium upon
the Directorial Government. The occasion required them to say something,
which Talleyrand undertook, and had the "unparalleled effrontery," as
expressed by Mr. Pickering, to affect ignorance of the whole affair, to
demand the names of the enigmatical personages, (X., Y., Z.,) and of the
"_woman_" that reinforced them; and to pronounce the whole the imposture
of some intriguers taking advantage of the state of isolation in which
the Ministers lived to try and wheedle them out of money. Upon this
disavowal, Mr. Pickering remarks:

      Although the Envoys' despatches, and the facts and
      circumstances hereinbefore stated, cannot leave a doubt
      that X., as well as Y. and Z., was well known to Mr.
      Talleyrand, it will not be amiss to add, that on the 2d of
      December, X., Y., and Z., dined together at Mr.
      Talleyrand's, in company with Mr. Gerry; and that, after
      rising from the table, the money propositions, which had
      before been made, were repeated, in the room and in the
      presence, though, perhaps, not in the hearing, of Mr.
      Talleyrand. Mr. X. put the question to Mr. Gerry in direct
      terms, either "whether the Envoys would now give the
      _douceur_," or "whether they had got the money ready." Mr.
      Gerry, very justly offended, answered positively in the
      negative, and the conversation dropped.

      Mr. Z., who has avowed himself to be Mr. Hauteval, was the
      person who first made known to the Envoys the Minister's
      desire to confer with them individually on the objects of
      their mission. He it was who first introduced Mr. Gerry to
      Mr. Talleyrand, and served as the interpreter of their
      conversations; and in his letter to Mr. Talleyrand, at the
      close of Mr. Gerry's document, No. 35, he announces himself
      to be the agent of the Minister, to make communications to
      the Envoys.

      The sensation which these details irresistibly excite is
      that of astonishment at the unparalleled effrontery of Mr.
      Talleyrand, in demanding of Mr. Gerry the names of X., Y.,
      and Z., after Y. had accompanied him on a visit to the
      Minister, with whom the conversation detailed in the
      printed despatches then passed, and who then assured Mr.
      Gerry "that the information Mr. Y. had given him was just,
      and might always be relied on;" after Z. had in the first
      instance introduced Mr. Gerry to the Minister, and served
      as their mutual interpreter, and when the conversation
      between them had also been stated in despatches; and after
      X., Y., and Z. had all dined together with Mr. Gerry at Mr.
      Talleyrand's table, on rising from which X. and Y. renewed
      the proposition about the money! The very circumstances of
      Mr. Talleyrand's being continued in office after the
      account of these intrigues had been published to the world
      is a decisive proof that they were commenced and carried on
      with the privity and by the secret orders of the Directory.
      It was to accomplish the object of these intrigues that the
      American Envoys were kept at Paris unreceived six months
      after their credentials had been laid before the Directory;
      and it was only because they were superior to those
      intrigues, and that no hopes remained of wheedling or
      terrifying them into a compliance, that two of them were
      then sent away, and with marks of insult and contempt.

The Directory at that time were: Barras, Merlin, Siéyes, Gohier, and
Roger Ducos,--whose government Buonaparte soon after overthrew, and
drove the two first from France, with the epithet "_rotten_" applied to
them. The American Ministers were censured by some of their
contemporaries for listening to these subaltern agents, but they had
valid reasons for their conduct: first, to avoid the further threatened
depredations on American commerce; and next, to unite their
fellow-citizens at home by exposing the corruption of the (then) French
Government.




SIXTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 2, 1799.


LIST OF MEMBERS.


SENATORS.

_New Hampshire._--John Langdon, S. Livermore.
_Vermont._--Nathaniel Chipman, Elijah Paine.
_Massachusetts._--Samuel Dexter, Benjamin Goodhue.
_Rhode Island._--Theodore Foster, Ray Greene.
_Connecticut._--James Hillhouse, Uriah Tracy.
_New York._--John Laurance, J. Watson.
_New Jersey._--Jonathan Dayton, James Schureman.
_Pennsylvania._--William Bingham, James Ross.
_Delaware._--Henry Lattimer, William H. Willes.
_Maryland._--John E. Howard, James Lloyd.
_Virginia._--Stevens T. Mason, Wilson C. Nicholas.
_North Carolina._--Timothy Bloodworth, Jesse Franklin.
_South Carolina_--Charles Pinckney, Jacob Read.
_Georgia._--A. Baldwin, James Gunn.
_Tennessee._--Joseph Anderson, William Cocke.
_Kentucky._--John Brown, Humphrey Marshall.


REPRESENTATIVES.

_New Hampshire._--Abiel Foster, Jonathan Freeman, William Gordon, James
Sheafe.

_Vermont._--Matthew Lyon, Lewis R. Morris.

_Massachusetts._--Bailey Bartlett, Phanuel Bishop, Silas Lee, Levi
Lincoln, Samuel Lyman, Harrison G. Otis, John Read, T. Sedgwick, Samuel
Sewall, George Thatcher, Joseph B. Varnum, P. Wadsworth, Lemuel
Williams.

_Rhode Island._--John Brown, C. G. Champlin.

_Connecticut._--Jonathan Brace, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, William
Edmond, C. Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich, Roger Griswold.

_New York._--Theodore Bailey, John Bird, William Cooper, Lucas
Elmendorph, Henry Glenn, E. Livingston, Jonas Platt, John Smith, John
Thompson, Philip Van Cortlandt.

_New Jersey._--John Condit, Franklin Davenport, James H. Imlay, Aaron
Kitchell, James Linn.

_Pennsylvania._--Robert Brown, Albert Gallatin, Andrew Gregg, John A.
Hanna, Thomas Hartley, Joseph Heister, John W. Kittera, Michael Leib,
Peter Muhlenberg, John Smilie, Richard Thomas, Robert Wain, Henry Woods.

_Delaware._--James A. Bayard.

_Maryland._--George Baer, Gabriel Christie, William Craik, John Dennis,
George Dent, Joseph H. Nicholson, Samuel Smith, John C. Thomas.

_Virginia._--Samuel J. Cabell, Matthew Clay, John Dawson, John
Eggleston, Thomas Evans, Samuel Goode, Edwin Gray, David Holmes, John
Geo. Jackson, Henry Lee, John Marshall, Anthony New, John Nicholas,
Robert Page, Josiah Parker, Levin Powell, John Randolph, Abram Trigg,
John Trigg.

_North Carolina._--Willis Alston, Joseph Dixon, William B. Grove,
Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Nathaniel Macon, Richard D.
Spaight, Richard Stanford, David Stone, Robert Williams.

_South Carolina._--R. G. Harper, Benj. Huger, Abraham Nott, Thomas
Pinckney, John Rutledge, Thomas Sumter.

_Georgia._--James Jones, Benjamin Taliaferro.

_Tennessee._--William C. C. Claiborne.

_Kentucky._--Thomas T. Davis, John Fowler.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, December 2, 1799.

The first session of the sixth Congress, conformably to the
constitution, commenced this day, and the Senate assembled, in their
Chamber, at the city of Philadelphia.


PRESENT:

JOHN LANGDON, from New Hampshire.

BENJAMIN GOODHUE, from Massachusetts.

THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island.

JAMES HILLHOUSE and URIAH TRACY, from Connecticut.

JOHN LAURANCE and JAMES WATSON, from New York.

WILLIAM BINGHAM, from Pennsylvania.

HUMPHREY MARSHALL, from Kentucky.

JACOB READ, from South Carolina.

JAMES GUNN, from Georgia.

JOSEPH ANDERSON, appointed a Senator by the State of Tennessee, for the
remainder of the term for which their late Senator, ANDREW JACKSON, was
appointed; ABRAHAM BALDWIN, appointed a Senator by the State of Georgia;
JOHN BROWN, appointed a Senator by the State of Kentucky; SAMUEL
DEXTER, appointed a Senator by the State of Massachusetts; SAMUEL
LIVERMORE, appointed a Senator by the State of New Hampshire; and
WILLIAM HILL WELLS, appointed a Senator by the State of Delaware;
severally produced their credentials, and took their seats in the
Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of
a President _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and SAMUEL
LIVERMORE was chosen.

_Ordered_, That Mr. READ administer the oath required by law to the
President of the Senate _pro tempore_.

The PRESIDENT administered the oath, as the law prescribes, to Messrs.
ANDERSON, BALDWIN, BROWN, DEXTER, and WELLS.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait upon 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 SAMUEL
LIVERMORE, President of the Senate _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 SAMUEL
LIVERMORE, President of the Senate _pro tempore_.

_Resolved_, That each Senator be supplied, during the present session,
with three such newspapers, printed in any of the States, as he may
choose, provided, that the same be furnished at the rate usual for the
annual charge of such papers.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a
quorum of the House is assembled, and have elected THEODORE SEDGWICK
their Speaker.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. READ and BINGHAM, be a 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.

The PRESIDENT communicated a letter signed John Trumbull, presenting to
the Senate of the United States impressions of two prints of the
American Revolution, which he had lately caused to be published; and the
letter was read.

_Ordered_, That it lie on the table.

The Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.


TUESDAY, December 3.

WILLIAM COCKE, appointed a Senator by the State of Tennessee, and JAMES
SCHUREMAN, appointed a Senator by the State of New Jersey, in the room
of John Rutherfurd, resigned, severally produced their credentials, were
qualified, and took their seats in the Senate.

HENRY LATIMER, from the State of Delaware, and JAMES ROSS, from the
State of Pennsylvania, severally attended.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a
quorum of the House is assembled, and have appointed a joint committee
on their part, together with such committee as the Senate may appoint on
theirs, 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.

Mr. READ reported from the joint committee appointed for the purpose,
that they had waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and had
notified him that a quorum of the two Houses of Congress are assembled;
and that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, acquainted the committee,
that he would meet the two Houses, this day, at 12 o'clock, in the
Chamber of the House of Representatives.

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, this day addressed to both Houses
of Congress, was read:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives:_

      It is with peculiar satisfaction that I meet the sixth
      Congress of the United States of America. Coming from all
      parts of the Union, at this critical and interesting
      period, the members must be fully possessed of the
      sentiments and wishes of our constituents.

      The flattering prospects of abundance, from the labors of
      the people, by land and by sea; the prosperity of our
      extended commerce, notwithstanding interruptions occasioned
      by the belligerent state of a great part of the world; the
      return of health, industry, and trade, to those cities
      which have lately been afflicted with disease; and the
      various and inestimable advantages, civil and religious,
      which, secured under our happy frame of Government, are
      continued to us unimpaired, demand, of the whole American
      people, sincere thanks to a benevolent Deity, for the
      merciful dispensations of his providence.

      But, while these numerous blessings are recollected, it is
      a painful duty to advert to the ungrateful return which has
      been made for them, by some of the people in certain
      counties of Pennsylvania, where, seduced by the arts and
      misrepresentations of designing men, they have openly
      resisted the law directing the valuation of houses and
      lands. Such defiance was given to the civil authority as
      rendered hopeless all further attempts, by judicial
      process, to enforce the execution of the law; and it became
      necessary to direct a military force to be employed,
      consisting of some companies of regular troops, volunteers,
      and militia, by whose zeal and activity, in co-operation
      with the judicial power, order and submission were
      restored, and many of the offenders arrested. Of these,
      some have been convicted of misdemeanors, and others,
      charged with various crimes, remain to be tried.

      To give due effect to the civil administration of
      Government, and to ensure a just execution of the laws, a
      revision and amendment of the judiciary system is
      indispensably necessary. In this extensive country it
      cannot but happen that numerous questions respecting the
      interpretation of the laws, and the rights and duties of
      officers and citizens, must arise. On the one hand, the
      laws should be executed: on the other, individuals should
      be guarded from oppression. Neither of these objects is
      sufficiently assured under the present organization of the
      Judicial Department. I therefore earnestly recommend the
      subject to your serious consideration.

      Persevering in the pacific and humane policy which had been
      invariably professed and sincerely pursued by the Executive
      authority of the United States, when indications were made
      on the part of the French Republic, of a disposition to
      accommodate the existing differences between the two
      countries, I felt it to be my duty to prepare for meeting
      their advances, by a nomination of ministers upon certain
      conditions, which the honor of our country dictated, and
      which its moderation had given a right to prescribe. The
      assurances which were required of the French Government,
      previous to the departure of our Envoys, have been given
      through their Minister of Foreign Relations, and I have
      directed them to proceed on their mission to Paris.[45]
      They have full power to conclude a treaty, subject to the
      constitutional advice and consent of the Senate. The
      characters of these gentlemen are sure pledges to their
      country that nothing incompatible with its honor or
      interest, nothing inconsistent with our obligations of good
      faith or friendship to any other nation, will be
      stipulated.

      It appearing probable, from the information I received,
      that our commercial intercourse with some ports in the
      island of St. Domingo might safely be renewed, I took such
      steps as seemed to me expedient to ascertain that point.
      The result being satisfactory, I then, in conformity with
      the act of Congress on the subject, directed the restraints
      and prohibitions of that intercourse to be discontinued, on
      terms which were made known by proclamation. Since the
      renewal of this intercourse, our citizens, trading to those
      ports, with their property, have been duly respected, and
      privateering from those ports has ceased.


      The act of Congress relative to the seat of the Government
      of the United States, requiring that, on the first Monday
      of December next, it should be transferred from
      Philadelphia to the district chosen for its permanent
      seat, it is proper for me to inform you that the
      Commissioners appointed to provide suitable buildings for
      the accommodation of Congress and of the President, and for
      the public offices of the Government, have made a report of
      the state of the buildings designed for those purposes in
      the city of Washington; from which they conclude that the
      removal of the seat of Government to that place, at the
      time required, will be practicable, and the accommodations
      satisfactory. Their report will be laid before you.

      At a period like the present, when momentous changes are
      occurring, and every hour is preparing new and great events
      in the political world, when a spirit of war is prevalent
      in almost every nation with whose affairs the interests of
      the United States have any connection, unsafe and
      precarious would be our situation were we to neglect the
      means of maintaining our just rights. The result of the
      mission to France is uncertain; but, however it may
      terminate, a steady perseverance in a system of national
      defence, commensurate with our resources and the situation
      of our country, is an obvious dictate of wisdom; for,
      remotely as we are placed from the belligerent nations, and
      desirous as we are, by doing justice to all, to avoid
      offence to any, nothing short of the power of repelling
      aggressions will secure to our country a rational prospect
      of escaping the calamities of war, or national degradation.
      As to myself, it is my anxious desire so to execute the
      trust reposed in me, as to render the people of the United
      States prosperous and happy. I rely, with entire
      confidence, on your co-operation in objects equally your
      care; and that our mutual labors will serve to increase and
      confirm union among our fellow-citizens, and an unshaken
      attachment to our Government.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _December 3, 1799_.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. ROSS, READ, and TRACY, 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.

_Ordered_, That the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, this
day communicated to both Houses of Congress, be printed for the use of
the Senate.

_Resolved_, That two Chaplains of different denominations, be appointed
to Congress for the present session, one by each House, who shall
interchange weekly.

The Senate proceeded to the appointment of a Chaplain to Congress on
their part, and the Right Reverend Bishop WHITE was unanimously elected.


THURSDAY, December 5.

JONATHAN DAYTON, appointed a Senator by the State of New Jersey, and RAY
GREENE, appointed a Senator by the State of Rhode Island, severally
produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats in the
Senate.


MONDAY, December 9.

ELIJAH PAINE, from the State of Vermont, attended.

The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the committee of the
draft of an Address in answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the session;
which, being read in paragraphs, was adopted, as follows:

      _To the President of the United States:_

      Accept, sir, the respectful acknowledgments of the Senate
      of the United States, for your Speech delivered to both
      Houses of Congress at the opening of the present session.

      While we devoutly join you in offering our thanks to
      Almighty God, for the return of health to our cities, and
      for the general prosperity of the country, we cannot
      refrain from lamenting that the arts and calumnies of
      factious, designing men, have excited open rebellion a
      second time in Pennsylvania; and thereby compelled the
      employment of military force to aid the civil authority in
      the execution of the laws. We rejoice that your vigilance,
      energy, and well-timed exertions, have crushed so daring an
      opposition, and prevented the spreading of such treasonable
      combinations. The promptitude and zeal displayed by the
      troops called to suppress this insurrection, deserve our
      highest commendation and praise, and afford a pleasing
      proof of the spirit and alacrity with which our
      fellow-citizens are ready to maintain the authority of our
      excellent Government.

      Knowing, as we do, that the United States are sincerely
      anxious for a fair and liberal execution of the Treaty of
      Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, entered into with Great
      Britain, we learn, with regret, that the progress of
      adjustment has been interrupted, by a difference of opinion
      among the commissioners. We hope, however, that the
      justice, the moderation, and the obvious interests of both
      parties, will lead to satisfactory explanations, and that
      the business will then go forward to an amicable close of
      all differences and demands between the two countries. We
      are fully persuaded that the Legislature of the United
      States will cheerfully enable you to realize your
      assurances of performing, on our part, all engagements
      under our treaties, with punctuality, and the most
      scrupulous good faith.

      When we reflect upon the uncertainty of the result of the
      late mission to France, and upon the uncommon nature,
      extent, and aspect, of the war now raging in Europe--which
      affects materially our relations with the powers at war,
      and which has changed the condition of their colonies in
      our neighborhood--we are of opinion, with you, that it
      would be neither wise nor safe to relax our measures of
      defence, or to lessen any of our preparations to repel
      aggression.

      Our inquiries and attention shall be carefully directed to
      the various other important subjects which you have
      recommended to our consideration; and from our experience
      of your past administration, we anticipate, with the
      highest confidence, your strenuous co-operation in all
      measures which have a tendency to promote and extend our
      national interests and happiness.

                          SAMUEL LIVERMORE,

      _President of the Senate, pro tempore_.

_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. ROSS 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.

Whereupon, _Resolved_, That the Senate will, to-morrow, at 12 o'clock,
wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES accordingly.


TUESDAY, December 10.

Agreeably to the resolution of yesterday, the Senate waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and the President of the Senate, in
their name, presented the Address then agreed to.

To which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES made the following reply:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      I thank you for this Address. I wish you all possible
      success and satisfaction in your deliberations on the means
      which have a tendency to promote and extend our national
      interests and happiness; and I assure you that, in all your
      measures directed to those great objects, you may, at all
      times, rely with the highest confidence on my cordial
      co-operation.

      The praise of the Senate, so judiciously conferred on the
      promptitude and zeal of the troops, called to suppress the
      insurrection, as it falls from so high authority, must make
      a deep impression, both as a terror to the disobedient, and
      an encouragement of such as do well.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _December 10, 1799_.

The Senate returned to their own Chamber, and proceeded to the
consideration of Executive business.


WEDNESDAY, December 11.

NATHANIEL CHIPMAN, from the State of Vermont, attended.


THURSDAY, December 12.

JAMES LLOYD, from the State of Maryland, attended.


TUESDAY, December 17.

Mr. TRACY, from the committee to whom was referred the letter signed
John Trumbull, of 20th September, 1798, reported a resolution, which was
adopted, as follows:

      _Resolved_, That the Senate of the United States accept the
      prints presented by John Trumbull, Esq., and that their
      President be requested to inform him, that while they
      respect the delicacy which dictated the _manner_ of
      offering this elegant present, they consider their country
      honored by the genius of one of her sons, by whom these
      prints are happily designed, to perpetuate two memorable
      scenes in her progress to independence, and to preserve in
      lively recollection the names and virtues of heroes who
      fell in her defence.


THURSDAY, December 19.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives:_

      The letter herewith transmitted will inform you that it has
      pleased Divine Providence to remove from this life our
      excellent fellow-citizen GEORGE WASHINGTON, by the purity
      of his character, and a long series of services to his
      country, rendered illustrious through the world. It remains
      for an affectionate and grateful people, in whose hearts he
      can never die, to pay suitable honors to his memory.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _December 19, 1799_.

The Message and letter were read and ordered to lie for consideration.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House having received intelligence of the death of their highly-valued
fellow-citizen, General GEORGE WASHINGTON, and sharing the universal
grief this distressing event must produce, have resolved that a joint
committee be appointed, to report measures suitable to the occasion, and
expressive of the profound sorrow with which Congress is penetrated on
the loss of a citizen, first in war, first in peace, and first in the
hearts of his countrymen; and, having appointed a committee on their
part, desire the concurrence of the Senate.

The Senate proceeded to consider the foregoing resolution of the House
of Representatives; whereupon,

_Resolved_, That they do concur therein, and that Messrs. DAYTON,
BINGHAM, DEXTER, GUNN, LAURANCE, TRACY, and READ, be the committee on
the part of the Senate.

_Resolved_, That the Senate will wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, to condole with him on the distressing event of the death of
General GEORGE WASHINGTON; and that a committee be appointed to prepare,
for that occasion, an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
expressive of the deep regret of the Senate; and that this committee
consist of Messrs. DEXTER, ROSS, and READ.

_Resolved_, That the chairs in the Senate Chamber be covered, and the
room hung with black, and that each member, and the officers of the
Senate, go into mourning, by the usual mode of wearing a crape round the
left arm, during the session.


MONDAY, December 23.

TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from the State of North Carolina, and JOHN E.
HOWARD, from the State of Maryland, severally attended.

Mr. DEXTER, from the committee appointed for the purpose on the 18th
instant, reported the draft of an Address to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, on the death of General GEORGE WASHINGTON; which being read in
paragraphs, was adopted, as follows:

      _To the President of the United States:_

      The Senate of the United States respectfully take leave,
      sir, to express to you their deep regret for the loss
      their country sustains in the death of General GEORGE
      WASHINGTON.

      This event, so distressing to all our fellow-citizens, must
      be peculiarly heavy to you, who have long been associated
      with him in deeds of patriotism. Permit us, sir, to mingle
      our tears with yours; on this occasion it is manly to weep.
      To lose such a man, at such a crisis, is no common calamity
      to the world. Our Country mourns her Father. The Almighty
      Disposer of human events has taken from us our greatest
      benefactor and ornament. It becomes us to submit with
      reverence to Him who "maketh darkness his pavilion."

      With patriotic pride, we review the life of our WASHINGTON,
      and compare him with those of other countries, who have
      been pre-eminent in fame. Ancient and modern names are
      diminished before him. Greatness and guilt have too often
      been allied; but his fame is whiter than it is brilliant.
      The destroyers of nations stood abashed at the majesty of
      his virtues. It reproved the intemperance of their
      ambition, and darkened the splendor of victory. The scene
      is closed, and we are no longer anxious lest misfortune
      should sully his glory; he has travelled on to the end of
      his journey, and carried with him an increasing weight of
      honor; he has deposited it safely, where misfortune cannot
      tarnish it, where malice cannot blast it. Favored of
      heaven, he departed without exhibiting the weakness of
      humanity. Magnanimous in death, the darkness of the grave
      could not obscure his brightness.

      Such was the man whom we deplore. Thanks to God! his glory
      is consummated; WASHINGTON yet lives--on earth in his
      spotless example--his spirit is in heaven.

      Let his countrymen consecrate the memory of the heroic
      General, the patriotic Statesman, and the virtuous Sage;
      let them teach their children never to forget that the
      fruit of his labors and his example are their inheritance.

                          SAMUEL LIVERMORE,

      _President of the Senate, pro tempore_.

_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. DEXTER reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he had acquainted them that he
would receive the Address of the Senate immediately, at his own house.

Whereupon, the Senate waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and
the PRESIDENT of the Senate, in their name, presented the Address this
day agreed to.

To which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES made the following reply:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate:_

      I receive with the most respectful and affectionate
      sentiments, in this impressive address, the obliging
      expressions of your regard for the loss our country has
      sustained in the death of her most esteemed, beloved, and
      admired citizen.

      In the multitude of my thoughts and recollections on this
      melancholy event, you will permit me only to say, that I
      have seen him in the days of adversity in some of the
      scenes of his deepest distress and most trying
      perplexities; I have also attended him in his highest
      elevation, and most prosperous felicity, with uniform
      admiration of his wisdom, moderation, and constancy.

      Among all our original associates in that memorable League
      of the Continent in 1774, which first expressed the
      sovereign will of a free nation in America, he was the only
      one remaining in the General Government. Although, with a
      constitution more enfeebled than his, at an age when he
      thought it necessary to prepare for retirement, I feel
      myself alone, bereaved of my last brother, yet I derive a
      strong consolation from the unanimous disposition which
      appears, in all ages and classes, to mingle their sorrows
      with mine, on this common calamity to the world.

      The life of our WASHINGTON cannot suffer by a comparison
      with those of other countries who have been most celebrated
      and exalted by fame. The attributes and decorations of
      royalty could have only served to eclipse the majesty of
      those virtues which made him, from being a modest citizen,
      a more resplendent luminary. Misfortune, had he lived,
      could hereafter have sullied his glory only with those
      superficial minds, who, believing that characters and
      actions are marked by success alone, rarely deserve to
      enjoy it. Malice could never blast his honor, and envy made
      him a singular exception to her universal rule. For
      himself, he had lived enough to life, and to glory. For his
      fellow-citizens, if their prayers could have been answered,
      he would have been immortal. For me, his departure is at a
      most unfortunate moment. Trusting, however, in the wise and
      righteous dominion of Providence over the passions of men,
      and the results of their councils and actions, as well as
      over their lives, nothing remains for me but humble
      resignation.

      His example is now complete, and it will teach wisdom and
      virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the
      present age, but in future generations, as long as our
      history shall be read. If a Trajan found a Pliny, a Marcus
      Aurelius can never want biographers, eulogists, or
      historians.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _December 23, 1799_.

The Senate returned to their own Chamber.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
joint committee appointed on the part of the House of Representatives,
on the 19th instant, on the receipt of the intelligence of the death of
General GEORGE WASHINGTON, having made report to that House, they have
agreed to sundry resolutions thereupon, in which they desire the
concurrence of the Senate.

Mr. DAYTON, from the joint committee appointed the 19th instant, on the
part of the Senate, on the receipt of the intelligence of the death of
General GEORGE WASHINGTON, reported in part, and the report was agreed
to. Whereupon,

The Senate took into consideration the resolutions of the House of
Representatives, of this day, on the report of the joint committee on
the subject above mentioned, and which resolutions are as follows:

      _Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That a
      marble monument be erected by the United States in the
      Capitol, at the City of Washington; and that the family of
      General WASHINGTON be requested to permit his body to be
      deposited under it; and that the monument be so designed as
      to commemorate the great events of his military and
      political life.

      _And be it further resolved_, That there be a funeral
      procession from Congress Hall to the German Lutheran
      Church, in honor of the memory of General GEORGE
      WASHINGTON, on Thursday, the 26th instant; and that an
      oration be prepared at the request of Congress, to be
      delivered before both Houses on that day; and that the
      President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of
      Representatives, be desired to request one of the members
      of Congress to prepare and deliver the same.

      _And be it further resolved_, That it be recommended to the
      people of the United States to wear crape on the left arm,
      as mourning, for thirty days.

      _And be it further resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE
      UNITED STATES be requested to direct a copy of these
      resolutions to be transmitted to Mrs. WASHINGTON, assuring
      her of the profound respect Congress will ever bear to her
      person and character; of their condolence on the late
      afflicting dispensation of Providence, and entreating her
      assent to the interment of the remains of General GEORGE
      WASHINGTON, in the manner expressed in the first
      resolution.

      _Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be
      requested to issue a proclamation, notifying to the people
      throughout the United States, the recommendation contained
      in the third resolution.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the Senate do concur in the aforesaid
resolutions.


THURSDAY, December 26.

In conformity to the resolve of the 23d instant, the Senate went in
procession to the German Lutheran Church, where was delivered an oration
in honor of the memory of General GEORGE WASHINGTON. After which, they
returned to their own Chamber, and adjourned.


FRIDAY, December 27.

_Resolved_, That the thanks of the Senate be communicated, through their
President, to General HENRY LEE, for the eloquent and impressive oration
to the memory of General GEORGE WASHINGTON, which he prepared and
delivered at the request of Congress.

_Resolved_, That the Secretary be directed to apply to General LEE for a
copy of the same.


MONDAY, December 30.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, Vice President of the United States, and President of
the Senate, attended.

JESSE FRANKLIN, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of
North Carolina, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his
seat in the Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter signed John Cleves
Symmes, stating the reasons why Congress should be induced to receive
of him the purchase money for certain public lands at the contract
price; and the letter was read.

Mr. LIVERMORE laid before the Senate a letter signed Henry Lee, in
answer to their vote of thanks of the 27th instant, and request of a
copy of his oration; which was read.

Mr. DAYTON, from the joint committee appointed the 19th instant, on the
intelligence of the death of General GEORGE WASHINGTON, made a further
report, in part, and it was agreed that the consideration thereof be
postponed.


TUESDAY, December 31.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have passed "Resolutions directing further measures in honor of
the memory of General George Washington," in which they desire the
concurrence of the Senate.

The resolutions were read, as follows:

      _Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
      it be recommended to the people of the United States to
      assemble on the 22d day of February next, in such numbers
      and manner as may be convenient, publicly to testify their
      grief for the death of General GEORGE WASHINGTON, by
      suitable eulogies, orations, and discourses, or by public
      prayers.

      _And be it further resolved_, That the PRESIDENT be
      requested to issue a proclamation for the purpose of
      carrying the foregoing resolution into effect.

Whereupon, _Resolved_, That the Senate do concur in the said resolution.


FRIDAY, January 3, 1800.

WILSON CARY NICHOLAS, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the
State of Virginia, to supply the vacancy occasioned by the death of
Henry Tazewell, Esq., produced his credentials, was qualified, and took
his seat in the Senate.


TUESDAY, January 7.

STEPHENS THOMPSON MASON, from the State of Virginia, attended.


WEDNESDAY, January 8.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives:_

      In compliance with the request in one of the resolutions of
      Congress, of the 21st of December last, I transmitted a
      copy of those resolutions, by my Secretary, Mr. Shaw, to
      Mrs. WASHINGTON, assuring her of the profound respect
      Congress will ever bear to her person and character; of
      their condolence in the late afflicting dispensation of
      Providence; and entreating her assent to the interment of
      the remains of General GEORGE WASHINGTON, in the manner
      expressed in the first resolution. As the sentiments of
      that virtuous lady, not less beloved by this nation than
      she is at present greatly afflicted, can never be so well
      expressed as in her own words, I transmit to Congress her
      original letter.

      It would be an attempt of too much delicacy to make any
      comments upon it; but there can be no doubt that the nation
      at large, as well as all the branches of the Government,
      will be highly gratified by any arrangement which may
      diminish the sacrifice she makes of her individual
      feelings.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _January 8, 1800_.

The letter is as follows:

      SIR: While I feel with keenest anguish the late
      dispensation of Divine Providence, I cannot be insensible
      to the mournful tributes of respect and veneration which
      are paid to the memory of my dear deceased husband; and, as
      his best services, and most anxious wishes, were always
      devoted to the welfare and happiness of his country, to
      know that they were truly appreciated and gratefully
      remembered, affords no inconsiderable consolation.

      Taught by the great example which I have so long had before
      me, never to oppose my private wishes to the public will, I
      must consent to the request made by Congress, which you
      have had the goodness to transmit to me; and, in doing
      this, I need not, I cannot, say what a sacrifice of
      individual feeling I make to a sense of public duty.

      With grateful acknowledgments, and unfeigned thanks, for
      the personal respect and evidences of condolence, expressed
      by Congress and yourself, I remain, very respectfully, sir,
      your most obedient, humble servant.

                          MARTHA WASHINGTON.

      The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

_Ordered_, That the Message and letter be referred to the joint
committee appointed on the 19th December last, to report suitable
measures in honor of the memory of General GEORGE WASHINGTON, deceased.


THURSDAY, January 23.

CHARLES PINCKNEY, appointed a Senator by the State of South Carolina,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the
Senate.


_Disputed Presidential Elections._

On motion, of Mr. Ross, that it be

      _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to consider
      whether any, and what, provisions ought to be made by law
      for deciding disputed elections of President and Vice
      President of the United States, and for determining the
      legality or illegality of the votes given for those
      officers in the different States:

A motion was made to amend the motion by adding, "and that the committee
be authorized to report by bill or otherwise."

Mr. BROWN, of Kentucky, was of opinion that this was a subject on which
Congress had no right to legislate. When the constitution undertook to
make provisions on a subject, if they were found incomplete, or
defective, they must be remedied by recommending an amendment to the
constitution. He wished the gentleman who had made this motion would pay
further attention to the subject, and believed he would find that if
any thing was to be done it must be done by proposing an amendment to
the constitution.

Mr. Ross said, that the constitution had certainly made no provision on
this subject. It only directed that after the votes were received, &c.,
the President of the Senate should, in the presence of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, open the certificates, and the votes
should be counted. Suppose, said he, persons should claim to be
Electors, who had never been _properly_ appointed, should their vote be
received? Suppose they should vote for a person to be President who had
not the age required by the constitution, or who had not been long
enough a citizen of the United States, or for two persons who were both
citizens of the same State--such cases might happen and were very likely
to happen, and is there no remedy? What a situation would the country be
in if such a case was to happen! He thought it their duty to make
provision for it, and he believed a law was sufficient.

Mr. C. PINCKNEY, of South Carolina, thought it a very dangerous practice
to endeavor to amend the constitution by making laws for the purpose.
The constitution was a sacred deposit, put into their hands; they ought
to take great care not to violate or destroy the essential provisions
made by that instrument. He remembered very well that in the Federal
Convention great care was used to provide for the election of the
President of the United States, independently of Congress; to take the
business as far as possible out of their hands. The votes are to be
given by Electors appointed for that express purpose, the Electors are
to be _appointed_ by each State, and the whole direction as to the
manner Of their appointment is given to the State Legislatures. Nothing
was more clear to him than that Congress had no right to meddle with it
at all; as the whole was intrusted to the State Legislatures, they must
make provision for all questions arising on the occasion.

Mr. DEXTER, of Massachusetts, did not feel himself at all in doubt as to
the right of the Legislature to make such provisions on this subject as
appeared to be necessary. It was directed by the constitution that a
President should be appointed, that he should be of not less than
thirty-five years of age, that he should have been at least fourteen
years a citizen of the United States, &c. The proceedings in the
election of a President may be defective in all these particulars, and
can it be supposed that there is no way to correct them? The
constitution is not silent on this head; among the powers given to
Congress in the 5th section is this, "to pass all laws 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 officer thereof." The law now proposed
appears to be necessary to carry into effect the power of appointing
the President; it is, therefore, clearly constitutional.

Mr. LIVERMORE, of New Hampshire never felt less doubt on any subject
than the one now under consideration: the constitution has given many
directions as to the appointment of the President, some of which he
read. It is possible (said Mr. L.) that gentlemen can suppose all these
may be violated and disregarded, and yet that it is nobody's business to
interpose and make provision to prevent it? He trusted the honorable
Senate would agree to the resolution to appoint a committee for that
purpose.

Mr. BALDWIN, of Georgia, expressed his regret that the mover of this
resolution had not thought proper to bring forward a subject so new and
important, in the form commonly used in parliamentary assemblies, by a
single proposition, viz: "that it is expedient that further provision be
made respecting disputed votes for President and Vice President of the
United States." It was manifest from the debate that several different
questions had been under consideration at the same time, and different
gentlemen were in fact directing their remarks to different questions.

The first question was, the one he had just mentioned, whether there was
so great a defect in the present provisions, which exist on this
subject, as to render further provisions necessary?

The second is, if further provisions are necessary, must they be made by
amendment to the constitution? or,

Thirdly, whether they can be made by law?

He must say for himself, that he did not agree that the present
provisions on this subject were so defective and absurd as had been
represented. His general respect for those who had gone before him in
this House, and especially for the venerable assembly of the most
experienced statesmen of the country by whom the constitution had been
formed, forbade him to entertain the belief that the subject, which is
the strong feature that characterizes this as an Elective Government,
could have been till now so entirely out of sight and neglected.
Gentlemen appeared to him, from their observations, to forget that the
constitution in directing _Electors_ to be appointed throughout the
United States equal to the whole number of the Senators and
Representatives in Congress, for the express purpose of intrusting this
constitutional branch of power to them, had provided for the existence
of as respectable a body as Congress, and in whom the constitution on
this business has more confidence than in Congress. Experience had
proved that a more venerable selection of characters could not be made
in this country than usually composed that electoral body. And what are
the questions which can arise on the subject intrusted to them to which
they are incompetent, or to which Congress is so much more competent?
The questions which present themselves seem to be:

1. Those which relate to the elections, returns, and qualifications, of
their own members. Shall these be taken away from that body, and
submitted to the superior decision and control of Congress, without a
particle of authority for it from the constitution?

2. The legality or constitutionality of the different steps of their own
proceedings, as, whether they vote for two persons both of the same
State; whether they receive votes for a person under thirty-five years
of age, or one who has not been fourteen years a citizen of the United
States, &c. It is true they, as well as any other constitutional branch
of this Government acting under that instrument, may be guilty of taking
unconstitutional or corrupt steps, but they do it at their peril.
Suppose either of the other branches of the Government, the Executive,
or the Judiciary, or even Congress, should be guilty of taking steps
which are unconstitutional, to whom is it submitted, or who has control
over it, except by impeachment? The constitution seems to have equal
confidence in all the branches on their own proper ground, and for
either to arrogate superiority, or a claim to greater confidence, shows
them in particular to be unworthy of it, as it is in itself directly
unconstitutional.

3. The authentication of their own acts. This would seem to be as
complete in them, as in either of the other branches of the Government.
Their own authentication of their act finishes the business intrusted to
them. It is true this must be judged of by the persons who are concerned
in carrying it into execution; as in all laws and official acts under
this Government, they to whom they are directed, and who are to be bound
by them, must judge, and judge at their peril, whether they are duly
authenticated or whether they are only a forgery.

If this be the just view of the subject, (and he could see no other
which did not involve inextricable difficulties,) it leaves no possible
question for the Senators and Representatives, when met together to
count the votes agreeably to the constitution, but to judge of the
authentication of the act of the Electors, and then to proceed and count
the votes as directed. If this body of the Electors of all the States
had been directed by the constitution to assemble in one place, instead
of being formed into different Electoral colleges, he took it for
granted none of the questions on which this resolution has been brought
forward, would have occurred; every one would have acknowledged that
they were to be settled in that assembly. It having been deemed more
safe by the constitution to form them into different Electoral colleges,
to be assembled in the several States, does not at all alter the nature
or distinctness of their powers, or subject them any more to the control
of the other departments of the Government.

He observed further on the other points to which gentlemen had spoken,
that if such radical and important changes were to be made on this
subject, as seemed to be in contemplation under this resolution, he
thought they must be made by proposing an amendment to the constitution
to that effect; and that they could not be made by law, without
violating the constitution. He did not agree with the gentleman from
Massachusetts, (Mr. DEXTER,) that the clause at the close of the 8th
section of the constitution, which gives to Congress power to pass all
laws necessary and proper to carry into effect the foregoing powers of
that section, and all other powers vested by the constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any department or officer
thereof, could be extended to this case: that speaks of the use of the
powers vested by the constitution--this resolution relates to the
formation of a competent and essential part of the Government itself:
that speaks of the movements of the Government after it is
organized--this relates to the organization of the Executive branch, and
is therefore clearly a constitutional work, and to be done, if at all,
in the manner pointed out by the constitution, by proposing an article
of amendment to the constitution on that subject. His own opinion,
however, was, what he had before stated, that the provisions on this
subject were already sufficient; that all the questions which had been
suggested were as safely left to the decision of the assemblies of
Electors, as of any body of men that could be devised; and that the
members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, when met
together in one room, should receive the act of the Electors as they
would the act of any other constitutional branch of the Government, to
judge only of its authentication, and then to proceed to count the
votes, as directed in the second article of the constitution.

The further consideration of the subject was postponed.


FRIDAY, January 24.

_Disputed Presidential Elections._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday, that
a committee be appointed to consider whether any, and what, provisions
ought to be made by law for deciding disputed elections of President and
Vice President of the United States, and for determining the legality or
illegality of the votes given for those officers in the different
States, and that the committee be authorized to report by bill or
otherwise; and the motion as amended was adopted; and,

_Ordered_, That Messrs. ROSS, LAURANCE, DEXTER, PINCKNEY, and LIVERMORE,
be the committee.


THURSDAY, February 20.

_Disputed Presidential Elections._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill prescribing the mode of
deciding disputed elections of President and Vice President of the
United States.

On motion to strike out of the first section of the bill the following
words:

      Together with the Chief Justice of the United States, or if
      he be absent from the Seat of Government or unable to
      attend, then with the next senior Judge of the Supreme
      Court of the United States, who may be present and able to
      attend.

It passed in the negative--yeas 11, nays 19, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster,
      Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Laurance,
      Livermore, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, Watson, and
      Wells.

On motion to strike out these words from the 1st section: "to choose by
ballot in each House six members," and in lieu thereof to insert "to
draw by lot in each House ---- members:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 9, nays 18, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
      Langdon, Marshall, Mason, and Nicholas.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster, Franklin,
      Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance,
      Livermore, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

_Ordered_, That the further consideration of the bill be postponed.


FRIDAY, February 21.

_Eulogium on General Washington._

_Resolved_, That the Senate will, to-morrow, at half past 12 o'clock,
meet at the Senate Chamber, and from thence walk in procession to the
German Calvinist Church in Race street, to hear the eulogium pronounced
on the character of General WASHINGTON.


MONDAY, February 24.

_Disputed Presidential Elections._

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill prescribing the mode
of deciding disputed elections of President and Vice President of the
United States.

On motion, to amend the bill, section 5th, line 7th, so as to provide
that the proceedings of the committee be held in public, by striking out
the words "with closed doors," and inserting, "in the Chamber of the
House of Representatives, with open doors," in lieu thereof:

It passed in the negative--yeas 8, nays 16, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Mason, and Nicholas.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Foster, Goodhue, Greene,
      Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Marshall,
      Paine, Read, Ross, Tracy, and Wells.

And, after progress, the further consideration of the bill was
postponed.


WEDNESDAY, February 26.

_Breach of Privilege._

DUANE AND THE AURORA.

A motion was made, by Mr. TRACY, that it be

      _Resolved_, That the Committee of Privileges be, and they
      are hereby, directed to inquire who is the editor of the
      newspaper printed in the city of Philadelphia, called the
      General Advertiser, or Aurora, and by what means the editor
      became possessed of the copy of a bill prescribing the mode
      of deciding disputed elections of President and Vice
      President of the United States, which was printed in the
      aforesaid newspaper, published Wednesday morning, the 19th
      instant, February, and by what authority he published the
      same; and by what authority the editor published in the
      same paper that the honorable Mr. Pinckney, a Senator from
      South Carolina, and a member of the committee who brought
      before the Senate the bill aforesaid, had never been
      consulted on the subject. And generally to inquire the
      origin of sundry assertions in the same paper, respecting
      the Senate of the United States, and the members thereof,
      in their official capacity, and why the same were
      published; and make report to the Senate. And that the said
      committee have power to send for persons, papers, and
      records, relating to the subject committed to them.

_Ordered_, That this motion lie for consideration.

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill prescribing the mode
of deciding disputed elections of the President and Vice President of
the United States; and after progress, adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, March 5.

_Breach of Privilege._

The Senate took into consideration the motion made on the 26th of
February last, that an inquiry be had relative to a publication in a
newspaper called the "Aurora," on the 19th of the said month; and agreed
to insert after these words: "and by what authority he published the
same," line 7th, the words "as having passed the Senate."

Mr. COCKE said, he would not suffer a measure of this kind to pass
through the Senate, while he had the honor of a seat in that body,
without manifesting the most determined opposition. What did the
gentleman mean by avoiding the general principle? did he mean to get the
consent of the Senate, acting in the character of an inquest, to an
acknowledgment that the editor of the Aurora had been guilty of a crime,
without any inquiry whether the publication in itself was criminal, or
whether if it was criminal, the Senate, as an independent and a single
branch of the Legislature, had of itself the power to define the crime
and inflict the punishment? He could not consent to an admission of this
kind; the constitution gave them no such authority; the privileges of
the House and of the members did not extend beyond the walls of the
Chamber in which they were sitting, in cases of comment upon their
official proceedings. He had held these opinions from the time the
motion was first laid before the House, and thought that the
consequences which would result from pursuing the subject, would be more
dangerous to the honor and dignity of the Senate, which it was meant to
defend, than all the attacks which all the public newspapers could make
during their existence, inasmuch as an actual assumption of power was
far more detrimental to their character than any unfounded charge of
tyranny could be. He believed that the more the subject was agitated the
more would be the clamor against the Senate, and in the end they would
be forced to abandon the measure for want of ability to carry it
through; he therefore concluded it would be best to give it up in the
first instance, and save both their own time and the public money. He
would move to postpone the consideration of the motion till the first
Monday in December next.

Mr. TRACY did not wish to hurry on the decision, but as the resolution
had been several days upon the table, he believed the House might now
decide on the propriety of referring the business to the Committee of
Privileges, as this procedure would not be final; or, if the House was
not ready to vote immediately, the discussion might proceed and time
would be given for coming to the conclusion.

Mr. C. PINCKNEY.--This subject involves the important questions, What
are the privileges of Congress, and how far are they defined by the
constitution; and what is the liberty of the press, as it respects those
privileges? These are subjects of great consequence, and such as I
suppose the House will touch with much caution. My name having been
mentioned in the body of the original motion, I feel myself particularly
called upon to deliver my sentiments fully, as well with respect to the
manner in which it is mentioned, as to the limitations of the
constitution, and what ought, in my judgment, to be the conduct of the
Senate, on this very interesting occasion.

In considering, first, what are the privileges of Congress, and how far
they are defined by the constitution, I am naturally led into a
repetition of arguments I have found myself too frequently obliged to
use on this floor; that is, to entreat the House to recollect the nature
of our federal system; that all powers not expressly and specifically
delegated to Congress, are reserved to the States and people: and
particularly to remember, that where any powers are so expressly defined
as the privileges of Congress are, that it is our duty very carefully to
consider the consequences, before we take a step that may, by subsequent
or cool reflection, be found to exceed them; that the privileges of
Congress, as limited by the constitution, have been very deliberately
considered by men whose opinions were not swayed by party, and whose
impartial situation gave the best opportunity of judging; that having
before them the example of the unlimited privileges of the British
Parliament, and colonial assemblies, or councils, assuming to themselves
the right of such privileges; that knowing the consequences of undefined
powers, and being well aware what privileges were necessary to prevent
an interruption of the undisturbed situation a member should enjoy,
during the time he is engaged on public affairs, after much thought they
had defined them in the manner fixed by the constitution. No man, who is
a friend to order, will justify what properly deserves to be termed the
licentiousness of the press. When, instead of candidly reviewing the
arguments or public conduct of a member of the Legislature, or officer
of the Government, it meanly descends to private scandal, instead of
being defended, it should be met with contempt and disdain. Abuse is the
price that public men, and frequently those of the most ability, are
obliged to pay; and it is seldom, in countries where the press is free,
and strong political parties are known to exist, that it is much
noticed. Men of elevated minds, who feel themselves strong in the powers
of reasoning, will always yield to their feeble opponents the miserable
resort of abuse; it is the surest test of imbecility, and the public,
who generally think right, seldom hesitate to suppose it equally the
proof of weakness and of malice.

I shall consider this subject from its importance, and the peculiar
manner in which it has been introduced, as open to such animadversions
as are within the rules of order and are consistent with decorum. I
shall probably advance doctrines that will be termed as extraordinary
here, but it shall be done with the good manners I have ever considered
as the criterion of good breeding, and which self-respect will forbid my
violating. It is the first question respecting the privileges of the
Senate that I have ever been present at, and, as it involves the liberty
of the press, it is only necessary for me to mention these subjects, to
show the House the propriety of our well-examining every line of the
resolution on your table, before we adopt it.

I feel myself particularly called upon to give my opinion fully on this
subject, because my name is inserted in the body of the resolution, and,
to those unacquainted with the circumstances, it might have the
appearance of being done at my request; whereas it was not only done
without my knowledge, but is contrary to my wish, and opinion of the
power of the House, and of the mode in which such inquiries should be
conducted; that even if the House had the power, the remarks and
information contained in the paper are not sufficiently important to
attract its notice, particularly as they had been completely silent on
the abuse of the Senate in the Gazette of the United States, respecting
the stopping of the enlistments for the army; that the inquiry might
lead to steps not within the defined privileges of the Senate, and that,
as these may involve the liberty of the press, and the right of a
citizen to publish the debates and public acts of this House, those who
were opposed to what they might consider unconstitutional restrictions,
ought to meet the question at the threshold, and contest it in every
stage. I shall therefore feel it peculiarly my duty to do so, and, after
having stated to you my objections to any interference at all on this
subject, to move the postponement of the resolution, or to amend it in
some way that shall place on the journals my opinions of the extent of
your privileges, and reasons for objecting to the mode of inquiry
proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut.

In examining the constitution we find, that to prevent any attempt being
made on the part of either branch of Congress to define their own
privileges, and exercise the same, as occasion or circumstances may, in
their opinions, require, and to remove all doubt as to the extent and
exercise of the privileges they are to enjoy, the constitution has
positively and expressly limited and defined the same, by declaring--

      "That each House shall be the judge of the elections,
      returns, and qualifications of its own members; that they
      may compel the attendance of absent members, in such
      manner, and under such penalties, as each House may
      provide; that they may determine the rules of their
      proceedings, punish the members for disorderly behavior,
      and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.
      That the members of both Houses shall, in all cases, except
      treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from
      arrest during the attendance at their respective Houses,
      and in going to and returning from the same, and, for any
      debate or speech in either House, shall not be questioned
      in any other place."

This is all that is said on the subject of privilege; and surely no
words can be more explicit, nor any subject more clearly defined. The
powers they are to exercise, and the persons and cases they are to
operate upon, are all distinctly marked and named; nor is there a word
or a sentence in the whole that can by any possible construction be made
to mean that for any libels or printed attack on the public conduct or
opinions of either House of Congress, or of any of its members, that
their privilege shall extend to ordering the persons charged with the
offence before them, and imprisoning them at their will. The
constitution wisely determined, that they should possess all the powers
necessary to their formation, and the undisturbed order of their
proceedings, and the safety of their members from arrest, during their
attendance, and going to, and returning from Congress; but it at the
same time recollected, that it is the nature of our Government to invite
examinations of public measures, that it is the duty of our citizens to
make these inquiries, to watch over the proceedings of our public
bodies, and if they find them departing from the constitution, or
exceeding their authority, instantly to announce it. That our
constitution supposes no man, or body of men, to be infallible, but
considers them all as mere men, and subject to all the passions, and
frailties, and crimes, that men generally are, and accordingly provides
for the trial of such as ought to be tried, and leaves the members of
the Legislature, for their proceedings, to be amenable to their
constituents and to public opinion; it however particularly guards the
right of the citizens to investigate their measures; and in case of a
false or libellous attack, it intends, if the power of collecting juries
is fairly exercised, to provide a just and impartial tribunal to decide
between them, to act upon oath, and who ought not to be the particular
friends or enemies of either. On this subject I shall hereafter more
fully remark, and at present take some little notice of an observation
that has been made, and which, with the subject of privileges, should be
considered as preliminary to those that are necessary on the liberty of
the press. It is, that if Congress possessed the power contemplated by
this resolution, it was their duty to pass some legislative act
respecting it, declaring the manner in which it should be executed, and
designating the officer or officers who were to do so; that the people
would then know the manner in which offenders were to be summoned or
apprehended, or brought before them; but this should have been done when
no particular case had occurred, and was before them, and that no
proceeding of privileges in any case like the present, ought to be had
until such act was passed, and the mode of proceedings clearly
ascertained; that if the power was given by the constitution, until
Congress had legislated upon it, in the manner above mentioned, it was
extremely improper for either branch to attempt to exercise it; that a
judiciary department was erected by the constitution, but that Congress
was obliged to legislate upon it, and detail its duties, and provide for
the appointment of officers to execute them, before the powers of that
department could be properly exercised: and that if Congress possessed
the power some gentlemen contend for on this point, they must previously
legislate on it in the same manner. On this subject there can be no
doubt of the propriety of this objection, if Congress possessed the
power; and their never having passed such a law is a strong proof, that
whatever opinions either branches may have entertained, that both did
not suppose they possessed this power, or certainly they would have
legislated upon it. If they did not doubt, or were not sure they did not
possess this authority, why did they not legislate on it at the time
they did on all such other parts of their privileges and powers as they
conceived they had authority to act on. They (that is, Congress) passed
an act on the subject of the election of members of the House of
Representatives, of which that House are the sole judges; each House
detailed, in a particular manner, their rules and modes of
proceeding--this was all that was necessary to be detailed. The
remainder of the clause respecting privileges is so express on the
subjects of privilege from arrest, government of members, and
expulsion, that every civil officer in the United States, and every man
who has the least knowledge, cannot misunderstand them. I assert, that
it was the design of the constitution, and that not only its spirit, but
letter, warrant me in the assertion, that it never was intended to give
Congress, or either branch, any but specified, and those very limited,
privileges indeed. They well knew how oppressively the power of
undefined privileges had been exercised in Great Britain, and were
determined no such authority should ever be exercised here. They knew
that in free countries very few privileges were necessary to the
undisturbed exercise of legislative duties, and those few only they
determined that Congress should possess; they never meant that the body
who ought to be the purest, and the least in want of shelter from the
operation of laws equally affecting all their fellow-citizens, should be
able to avoid them; they therefore not only intended, but did confine
their privileges within the narrow limits mentioned in the constitution.
And here, sir, let me ask, are not these privileges all that are
necessary? They have complete authority to keep order and decorum within
their own chamber, to clear the galleries if an audience are unruly, and
to punish their own members, to take care that no arrests, except for
treason, felony, or breach of the peace, shall keep their members from
their duty, and for all libellous attacks or misrepresentations the laws
are open to them; and if unjustly attacked, no doubt the juries of their
countrymen, who are interested to preserve the dignity and independence
of their Legislature, will give them the most ample satisfaction. But it
is said, "each branch must possess this power to punish for breach of
privileges, which they must judge of as circumstances may arise and
require; that every legislative body, or branch of one, possesses an
inherent right to protect itself, which must be exercised as their
discretion directs, because it may frequently be necessary to exercise
it immediately, when the public safety would make it impossible to wait
for reference to other bodies, or tribunals," and, "that if a man was
approaching to knock you down, it would be absurd, instead of defending
yourself, to deliberate whether you were authorized to do so; that you
must act instantly, as the occasion demands; and that as each individual
in society possesses this inherent right to protect himself, so does
each branch of the Legislature." This, as far I have been able to
collect, is the sum of the reasoning on this subject; and it is said to
be strengthened by the practice and proceedings of the British
Parliament, and the Colonial Legislatures, before the Revolution, and
most of the State Legislatures since, and is now universally received as
the true doctrine on this subject.

That it is the doctrine and practice of the British Parliament, I will
allow; but it was because the doctrines there held are utterly
inadmissible in a free Government; and to prevent any influence from
them, and their precedents, and the improper practice of the Colonial
and State Legislatures, that this limitation of the privileges of
Congress was here purposely introduced. Will any man undertake to say,
that the privilege of the Parliament of Great Britain ought to be that
of the Congress of this country? Do you suppose that all their members,
and their property, and even their servants, should be protected from
arrests during the whole time they are elected for, many of them for
twenty years together, or during their lives? Would it be thought safe
in this country that a small majority of a small body, or single branch
of a Legislature, should claim and exercise the authority, whenever they
please, to send and seize any man in your community, however important,
and confine him in a loathsome dungeon, for six months together, merely
because he has differed with them in politics, and criticised, as he had
a right to do, on their legislative acts? Is it a pleasant sight to our
citizens, to see sergeants-at-arms, with their rods, inquisitorially
seizing freemen, and dragging them to your bar, and there exhibiting
them as criminals, or spectacles to crowded audiences, merely because
they thought they had a right to attack, by argument, proceedings which
appeared to them unconstitutional? Can you have the most distant idea,
that your constitution could have intended thus for ever to shut the
door of inquiry, and make it so penal and dangerous to your citizens
that none of them will dare to venture it? Is it possible for any man to
read the constitution with attention, and then suppose that such could
have been its design? So far from being so, I do assert that great pains
were taken specially to guard against the exercise of any such power,
and I have no doubt that the Congress of 1798 must have been of this
opinion, or else why did they pass the 2d section of the sedition law?
Why did they (improperly in my opinion, because it ought to belong to
the State judicials)--why did they make the crime of writing, uttering,
publishing, or printing any libel against the President, or either
branch of Congress, triable, and punishable, in the federal courts, if
either branch possessed this power themselves? If they have the right to
punish libels, or false, or malicious attacks, why include them in this
act? Their power extends over the whole of the Union, and can reach any
inhabitant, in any State. Is it not therefore clear, that by giving this
authority to the federal judges, to try and punish for written or
printed attacks on either branch of Congress, that the Congress of 1798
did not suppose, for attacks of this kind, made in the papers, there was
any other mode of punishment than by a trial, where the person charged
would have the benefit of trial by jury? Surely this must have been
their opinion, or they would not have had two different modes of trial
and punishment for the same offence. They never would have erected a new
jurisdiction to include a crime, when one sufficiently strong and
energetic existed already; but to prove this still more clearly, let us
inquire, why the constitution should have been so attentive to each
branch of Congress, so jealous of their privileges, and have shown so
little to the President of the United States in this respect. Why should
the individual members of either branch, or either branch itself, have
more privileges than him? He is himself, as far as his qualified
negative goes, a branch of the Legislature; he is, besides, your
Executive, he is the sword of the law, and does he possess any
privileges like these? If a man meets him walking alone in the streets
and insults him, or if one of ruffian manners should enter his house,
and even abuse him there, has your President any privileges like these?
Can he commit and imprison without a trial? No, sir, he must resort to
the laws for satisfaction, where the person charged with the outrage
will be heard, and where each party will have justice done them, by men
who ought to be so impartially summoned as that no undue bias will be
found, when they come to decide. No privilege of this kind was intended
for your Executive, nor any except that which I have mentioned for your
Legislature. The Convention which formed the constitution well knew that
this was an important point, and no subject had been more abused than
privilege. They therefore determined to set the example, in merely
limiting privilege to what was necessary, and no more. Look into the
constitutions of all the States which have been formed since the federal
constitution, and see if they have not done the same. The Constitution
of South Carolina is remarkably explicit and limited on this subject: It
says, "that each House may punish by imprisonment, during its sitting,
any person not a member, who shall be guilty of disrespect to the House,
by any disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence, or who,
during the time of its sitting, shall threaten harm to the body or
estate of any member, for any thing said in either House; or who shall
assault any of them therefor; or who shall assault or arrest any witness
or other person, ordered to attend the House, in his going to or
returning therefrom; or who shall rescue any person arrested by order of
the House." These are all privileges, except privilege from arrest or
seizure of estate, mentioned in that constitution; and the slightest
inspection at once shows, that except for disrespect or contemptuous
conduct, in its presence, or threatening or assaulting a member for his
conduct in the House, that no other authority is given to punish--not a
word is said about libels, or attacks by writing or printing, on their
conduct. It is well known that our constitution intended the press to be
free; to be the means of communicating the acts of the Government, and
of commenting on them where necessary; that it supposes that majorities
will sometimes exist, who may wish to overstep the boundaries they ought
not to pass; and, therefore, it provides for them, in the hands of the
people, this wholesome correction of the press, which those who resort
to must use at their peril. If they use it properly, animadvert with
propriety, and really point out defects or usurpations in the
Government, the people will applaud their zeal, and the laws will
support them in their exertions; but if they falsely or maliciously
misrepresent, the law will become the avenger of the Government, and
unprejudiced juries be the means of punishing calumniators. This is the
true footing upon which legislative privilege should be put in every
Government, and it is the one on which it is now placed in the United
States. By this you give sufficient power to punish, for any improper
thing done in their presence, which may disturb the order of either
House, or violate the decorum of their proceedings; and for any supposed
slanderous attack, the tenderness with which you ought to touch the
constitutional right of the public to inquire into public affairs, and
the delicate subject of trial by jury, will always necessarily oblige
you to recur to the latter for redress and satisfaction.

If it was proper, on subjects like this, to refer to British precedents,
I could mention a recent one, which is exactly in point; and shows, that
even in the English House of Commons, the doctrine I contend for
prevails; it is, that in all cases of libels against either House, the
remedy must be by prosecution by the Attorney General, and trial by
jury. In Stockdale's case, Doctor Logan published charges against the
House of Commons, in which he stated, in a variety of ways, that they
had been guilty of great cruelty to Mr. Hastings, Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox,
and all sides of the House agreed that it was a libel; but, instead of
ordering him before the House, they entered into resolutions directing
the Attorney General to prosecute. It appears to me so clear, that for
all libels or attacks on either branch of the Legislature, in writing or
in print, the mode must be by prosecution, that I do not know it is
necessary to trouble you at this time with any further reasoning on that
head; I will therefore only mention one more, and then conclude this
part of my subject: it is, that from the nature of our Government, where
our PRESIDENT is elective, and obliged to attend to public opinion, even
if he wishes to do so, he will never venture on those bold measures,
which hereditary Executives sometimes attempt. If, then, there should be
some men, whose political talents he is afraid of, or whose inquiries
into his administration give him uneasiness, an Executive, instead of
venturing on any such measure himself, if he can obtain a majority in
either branch, will easily discover some mode of having this man's
political iniquities construed into breaches of privilege; and, under
cover of his friends' influence, immure and silence, during a whole
session, and for half a year, a man, whose arguments were perhaps
unanswerable, and whose system may be the one which your councils may
the next year adopt. I am far from supposing that we are yet so much
advanced in the arts and intrigues of older Governments as to make this
probable at present; it is not however impossible, and must be guarded
against.

The next question is, that of the liberty of the press, as applying to
these defined privileges; and as it is the first time this sacred
subject has been before either House on a question of privilege, I shall
expect your indulgence in making some remarks on it. I shall be very
short; for however fruitful the subject is, yet so much has been said of
it elsewhere, and you must be so well acquainted with it, that it will
be necessary for me barely to state some general principles, as they
apply to the question before you. I feel a pride in saying that in no
country has the press ever been as free as in United America; however
clouded or interrupted this freedom has, in my opinion, lately been, I
entertain a hope that in a few months all its shackles will be removed,
and that the emotions they have occasioned in the public mind will for
ever forbid its being thus fettered again. To no subject have I ever
more carefully applied, than what ought in a well regulated Government
to be the freedom of the press. I well know that where the press is not
free, liberty is but a name, and Government a mockery. I have therefore
endeavored to form, in my own mind, what ought to be the true standard
of the freedom of the press with us; and I have no doubt that it
consists in this: That the printing press shall be free to every person
who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the Legislature, or any
branch of the Government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the
right thereof; that the free communication of thoughts and opinions is
one of the most invaluable rights of man; and every citizen may freely
speak, write, and print, on any subject, being responsible for the abuse
of that liberty; that in prosecutions for the publication of papers
investigating the official conduct of officers, or men in a public
capacity, or where the matter published is proper for public
information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all
indictments for libels the _Jury_ shall have a right to determine the
law, and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
This is the situation in which the Constitution of Pennsylvania has
placed the press; and it is the true and safe one, upon which it ought
to be placed in every free Government. Here the right to investigate the
conduct of the Legislature, and of official men, is not only recognized
and established, but the constitution seems to require it as a duty,
from the citizens. It says to them, these are men periodically delegated
by you to manage your public concerns--to you, and you alone, they are
accountable for their conduct; nor can you know whether it is
meritorious, or otherwise, but by having the right to examine into it,
and by freely and frequently exercising that right. And would it not be
the strangest thing in the world, when the constitution not only
establishes the right, but calls upon the citizens to exercise it with
alertness, and by no means to neglect it, that if they should happen to
displease a branch of the Legislature, whose conduct they have censured,
that they should be delivered immediately into the power of this branch,
to be dealt with as they please; that the men they had accused, and whom
they had, by the constitution, a right to accuse, should become their
judges? Would not this be a most extraordinary doctrine? Would it not
involve an inconsistency, that ought not certainly to be chargeable upon
the framers of the constitution? In private cases of slander, or
defamation, would you suffer the person abused, or any near connection
of his, or person interested in the event of the suit, to be on the
jury? Certainly not. How much more glaringly improper then would it be,
in cases of a public nature, where the acts of a legislative branch are
censured, and where the charge has been openly and honorably brought
forward, to commit the person who produced it, at once, to the power of
the body whose acts he has condemned! Let us suppose, that in the
exercise of this invaluable right, some disinterested and independent
man, urged by the most honorable and patriotic motives, should conceive
a branch of the Legislature overstepping the bounds of the constitution,
and going into measures destructive of our rights, or injurious to our
interests; that this man should be an important member of your
community, of known integrity and independence of situation and
character, that he should have no private ends of his own to answer, or
any thing in view but the public good; that he has embarked in the
investigation at the entreaty of a numerous and respectable part of the
community, who wished the public mind to be so fairly and fully
possessed of facts, and reasonings on them, as to be able, at the next
election, to determine with precision and fairness on the conduct of
their Legislature; under these circumstances would it be proper to
deliver this man into the power of a body whom he has charged with
misbehavior, or a departure from constitutional principles? Or would it
not be more fair, would it not wear more the appearance of impartiality
in case an examination was necessary into the nature of his charges, or
the manner in which he has made them, and the expressions he has used,
to have a distinct and unprejudiced body, a jury acting under oath, to
decide between them? As far as I know any thing of the principles of
natural justice, I should suppose there was no question on the subject,
and no other opinion ought to be entertained, and that without it there
can be no such liberty of the press, or freedom of inquiry, as the
constitution intends.

And here, sir, let it be asked, why should a Government that means well,
or is confident in its uprightness and ability, ever fear the press? It
should be to them a source of great pleasure, in reflecting that they
had so excellent a mode of diffusing a knowledge of their acts, well
knowing, if they were unjustly attacked, it gave them the most ample
means of defence; and that if it became immoderate and licentious, the
laws were always sufficiently energetic to punish it. How many
individuals when attacked or slandered, have rejoiced that such a
defence has been afforded them; and how indispensable is its free
investigation to the removal of doubts which sometimes crowd about the
characters of public bodies, or men, and which it is necessary to
remove! Public bodies are public property; and so indeed are public men;
who have in any degree rendered themselves conspicuous by their
exertions: few of these, if ever there was one, can expect to be without
personal enemies; these will be in proportion to the talents of the man
they dislike, and his consequence with the people. Men who engage in
public life, or are members of legislative bodies, must expect to be
exposed to anonymous, and sometimes avowed attacks, on their principles
and opinions. Their best shield will be an upright and able conduct. The
best informed will sometimes err; but when their intentions are pure, an
enlightened nation will easily discover it, and pardon the mistake. With
the shield of conscious rectitude, a Government can never dread the
press. It is only in States where the happiness of the people is not the
end of Government, or where an individual or a few possess the whole
authority, that the press is not agreeable to them. Hence, in
despotisms, it is generally odious to the sovereign, and strictly
limited. We have, however, found, even among them, a latitude which
proves that in the most despotic countries, where the sovereign is
conscious of using his power for the good of the people, he fears not
the slanders of the malicious. It is remarked of Frederic of Prussia,
that few princes were more libelled by their subjects; but that in no
country were libels more disregarded: that few, if any, instances ever
occurred of his endeavoring to discover the authors, or to crush, by
punishment, the spirit of inquiry which literary pursuits had diffused
among his subjects. A more remarkable instance is, that of the Empress
of Russia; in giving her directions respecting libels, she says, "great
care ought to be taken how we extend this crime; representing to
ourselves the danger of debasing the human mind by restraint and
oppression, which can produce nothing but ignorance, and must cramp and
depress the rising efforts of genius." I did not expect to have been
obliged ever to have introduced on this floor, Frederic or the Empress,
as examples on the subject of the press. The love of liberty, or a wish
to countenance the spirit of political inquiry, was not certainly among
the reasons for allowing this latitude; but they at once discovered,
that if they wished to govern an enlightened people, the spirit of
inquiry must be unshackled, and an extensive range given to literary
productions. Among the ancients we find Tiberius, and Trajan, and
Titus, allowing absolute liberty of speech and writing, suppressing the
laws against seditious words and writings, and punishing informers. But
the most remarkable instances we have, that freedom of speech and
writing are essential to the liberty and greatness of a people, are
those of Athens and Rome, when republics: in speaking of them, a
celebrated writer says, "that democracy is the nurse of genius, and the
greatest encourager of sublimity." The fact is evident from these
republics. In Greece, Athens was most democratical, and a state of the
greatest liberty; and hence it was, according to Paterculus, "that
eloquence flourished in greater force and plenty in that city alone than
in all Greece besides; insomuch, (says he,) although the bodies of the
people were dispersed into other cities, yet you would think their souls
and their genius to have been pent up within the precincts of Athens."
So the city of Rome was not only the seat of liberty and empire, but of
true wit and exalted genius. The Roman power outlived, it is true, for a
considerable time, its liberty, but the freedom of speech and writing
was gone, and wit and genius could not long survive them.

How applicable, sir, are these instances, and how incumbent on us is it,
if we mean to keep this country a Republic, to cherish the freedom of
the press, to remember that without it seldom any thing great or noble
can be produced, that to shackle it is to chain the mind, and stifle the
seeds of every thing that is generous and amiable! That, in the words of
a celebrated divine, "reason and freedom are our own, and given to
continue so; we are to use, but cannot resign them, without rebelling
against Him who gave them; that to invade them is to encroach on the
privileges we receive from God, and traverse the designs of Infinite
Goodness." We should remember the danger of precedents, and be careful,
as this is the first discussion we have had on this subject, not to
establish improper ones, or lay a foundation for that debasement of the
mind, which always follows the depression of the press.

It is important here to remind you of the anxiety of the State
Legislatures in insisting upon the doors of the Senate being thrown
open, and their legislative proceedings exposed, like the other branch,
to public view. It was done unquestionably with the intent, that minutes
of your debates should be taken, and all your proceedings subject to the
inspection of such of our citizens as choose to attend; but as, from the
distance, very few of the States could have citizens attending, the
great object certainly must have been to have notes taken of the
debates, and printed in the gazettes; that through that channel
information may be transmitted to every part of the Union, and thus the
States become, in the best manner they are able, judges of the talents,
as well as conduct and opinions of their members. That this is of
infinite importance, in a representative government, no man will deny;
but if a printer is to be seized, and dragged to your bar, and perhaps
imprisoned for a mistake, that a law has passed when it is only its
second reading, or that a member of a committee was not summoned to
attend the meeting of the committee, when he was, and did attend, or for
any mistake of this kind, I ask you what printer or reporter will take
your debates? Who will venture on it; because, where will you draw the
line? Will you require that each reporter shall give every word and
observation with exactness, and that the smallest deviation from what
was said on the orders or proceedings of the House, shall subject him to
the odium, and perhaps expense, of a trial at your bar, which must
accrue if he has counsel? If this is the case, no reporter will
certainly attempt to take your debates, and your doors may just as well
be shut again. But, say gentlemen, it is not only for those assertions
which you have mentioned, but for the preceding and accompanying
observations respecting the views and proceedings of the Senate, and of
the members of that body in their official capacity, for which we think
this examination requisite. I have already said, in the commencement of
my argument, that no man can justify the licentiousness of the press,
and that it is perhaps to be lamented that so much invective is used in
the papers on both sides of the question; but that as most of these
observations are on things that did not happen in the Senate room, and
many of them are stated to have occurred near two years ago, and that as
much more violent abuse against the Senate was published in the Federal
paper styled the Gazette of the United States, on the 13th day of
February, and no notice has been taken of it, that it was best, upon
this occasion, to suffer the present to pass unnoticed likewise: that it
is astonishing the honorable mover from Connecticut, who seems to feel
so much for the dignity and character of the Senate on this occasion,
did not, on that of the abuse which was heaped on it for consenting to
stop the enlistment for the army, have similar feelings; and that as he
consented to suffer those animadversions to pass, it would certainly be
doing no great violence to his feelings to deal with the present in the
same way: that perhaps the best mode to lessen the importance of a paper
was, not to treat its observations with either too much notice or
severity; that in politics, as in religion, persecution seldom made
converts; that if I ever had the inclination to raise the importance of
a press, and bring it into celebrity and notice, I would wish it
persecuted, for I never saw a press in a free Government persecuted but
it rose immediately. Attack a press for its political publications, you
instantly convince the people that it is dreaded, and must be of great
importance, and attract their attention. We can never forget the
memorable cases of _Sacheveral_ and _Wilkes_, or how much the English
nation was agitated by them, and we ought to be convinced, that in every
country having the least semblance of freedom, the same consequences
will always flow from the same measures.

I request of you again to consider the importance of the question, how
far, in the case of libels, or attacks in the papers, for their
political opinions, any single branch ought to possess the power,
perhaps in a moment of passion and resentment, to decide on what is to
affect the personal liberty of a citizen? Whether it is consistent with
the nature of our Government, that a single branch, without check or
control, should become judges in their own case? Whether any citizen
charged with a crime, for which he may be punished by the temporary loss
of liberty, is not entitled, by the constitution, to "a speedy trial by
an impartial jury?" And, whether to deny it, in this instance, would not
be to interfere with that provision of the constitution? For my own
part, I have no doubt of it; and, feeling as I always do, most jealous
for the character of this branch, I am apprehensive, should we proceed
in this measure, it may occasion unpleasant observations. Some of its
enemies may perhaps say, that no power is so arbitrary as that of the
unlimited authority of a single branch, acting in its own cause,
revenging its own affronts, and deciding, perhaps more by its own
passions and feelings, than by the justice of the case: that a power of
this kind is worse than a despotism; because there the despot is in some
measure checked by his individual responsibility; for the act being the
official act of the body, is that sort of protection under which an
individual despot cannot shelter himself from the public odium--should
the measure be oppressive, he must alone meet the general censure,
which, thus concentrated, strikes with force; but when divided among a
number, must in a great measure lose its effect. That, in every view of
the subject, we must be convinced that for libels, or printed attacks,
on either branch, the constitution must have intended to give the person
charged the right of trial by a jury, so collected that a cool and
unprejudiced examination might take place, and justice be done to all
parties; that this I had shown to be the case, in the instance I had
mentioned, in the House of Commons of Great Britain; and we surely would
not wish the press should be more free, or the freedom of inquiry into
legislative conduct, more unshackled in England than with us. Look, sir,
into the abuse that is daily poured by the papers of that country upon
their Parliament and Administration, and upon Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, and
all their leading members; and yet we see no proceedings of this kind.
Indeed, if we were to believe Montesquieu, and the writers since him, it
is to the freedom of the press alone England owes the portion of liberty
she enjoys--it is the ladder by which she rose, and that which she will
struggle most to preserve. I devoutly hope she will always keep it, and
that we shall likewise maintain it for ever in its utmost purity.

Mr. P. concluded by adding, that if the Senate went into a
consideration of his motion, instead of that of the gentleman from
Connecticut, (Mr. TRACY,) they would probably avoid that part of the
discussion which would be least agreeable, as the subject would be clear
from that locality and personality which attached to the first, and a
decision would take place without any reference to this or that
particular printer; but if the gentleman would postpone the question,
Mr. P. consented to let his motion lie on the table, with a view to its
being printed for the use of the members, that so both propositions
might be compared and considered with more attention than could be done
in any other way.

Mr. COCKE declared that the object which he had in view was nothing more
nor less than to rid the House of the business altogether. He was not
inclined to appoint any special time for the discussion, as the worthy
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. PINCKNEY) had requested. He had no
idea that it was supposed he had the saving or exoneration of any
printer in view; he had no such thing; but he wished to save the
reputation of this body, which he thought was placed in jeopardy by the
Connecticut motion. Here it is proposed to inquire and examine of and
into this, that, and the other--to bring one printer here, and generally
all persons and papers, who and whatever, just as your committee may
think fit. Suppose this power is doubted? Suppose the persons deny your
power--how are your committee to enforce their mandates? Suppose your
courts of law claim cognizance as a case of libel, are you to have two
prosecutions and two trials for the same offence? Surely, surely, your
committee will have to retire from the untenable ground, and the defeat
will recoil with disgrace upon those of us who attempt to assume powers
neither constitutional in themselves, nor just, even if they were
constitutional. You can call upon somebody--but who?--to inquire who is
the editor of the Aurora. You are to inquire how he became possessed of
a certain bill which he published; what kind of an inquiry is this? How
he procured the sight of a bill, while it was pending in Senate. Why, is
there any crime in printing a minute of our transactions? Your bills are
printed by your own order, for your use, and for the information of the
other House; two hundred copies or more are circulated without any
injunction of secrecy; they are sent off into every State of the Union;
and are you going to make inquiry how the editor of the Aurora got to
see one of them? Why, are not your gallery doors open, and cannot a bill
which has been read in public be possibly remembered, at least, cannot
it be taken down in short-hand? and will you punish every man who shall
repeat, print, or publish what is made public on this floor? Suppose the
editor of the Aurora declines to inform your committee of the mode
through which he obtains his information; he says it is convenient and
useful to him, but his prior engagements do not permit him to divulge
it to you; will you punish him for contempt? But suppose you possessed
of the physical power necessary to procure the information you require
by an application of the torture; while you are straining his muscles
and dislocating his joints, what becomes of the grand palladium of
American freedom? Where is the liberty of the press, which is secured to
the citizens of the Union against Federal usurpation? The constitution
declares that you shall not infringe upon the liberty of the press; and
a power expressly denied to the whole Government, a single branch may
not assume.

Here Mr. C. was called to order by

Mr. BINGHAM, of Pennsylvania, who inquired what the liberty of the press
had to do on a question of postponement? He believed, while the motion
for postponement was under consideration, all debate on the merits of
the main question to be out of order.

It was contended to be in order to object on a postponement generally to
the original motion, for an argument tending to defeat the original
motion is reason for a general postponement.

Mr. COCKE proceeded, and said he was glad to find that the freedom of
debate in this House was not to be destroyed, though it might be
interrupted; and he hoped that the freedom of the press would never be
subverted while the Government of the country rested upon the Republican
principle of representation. He admitted there were a great many
ill-natured things said by many of our American presses, but that should
never induce him to run the risk of destroying the most valuable and
effectual bulwark for maintaining us free and independent, by using an
instrument more fit to cut down the trunk of a tree, than to prune it of
its tendril luxuriances. What was the engine now brought out against
this freedom--an engine possessed of all the powers necessary to ensure
its success? A printer is to be charged, is to be tried, judged of, and
executed, by a body he has offended. Where will you find men of nerve
that will risk certain ruin? Such may arise when the press is in danger.
It was under these impressions that he wished to get rid of the business
altogether.

Mr. TRACY, of Connecticut, did not wish to press the business; indeed
his conduct had manifested this intention, for the original motion had
been suffered to lie on the table a longer term than usual before it was
called up, but even now when it was called up he did not wish to hurry
it through. He should not refuse a moderate delay, but he hoped the
motion from Tennessee would not prevail, as it went to destroy the
object without any further consideration. In answer to what fell from
the gentleman from Tennessee, he would say, that the objections he had
made did not all of them apply, and if there was any which did apply,
amendments could be made so as to conform them to the sense of the
Senate. He wished gentlemen would attend to the words of the
resolution, and they would find that they did not carry them beyond
what was prudent, mild, and proper. The committee are desired to inquire
who is the editor of the Aurora; this will appear to be a proper
inquiry, for the person is not publicly known; the imprint declares the
paper to be published for the heirs of Benjamin Franklin Bache, but we
do not know who are the heirs. The gentleman has told us it is no crime
to publish the doings of this body; agreed, but is it nothing to publish
untruths respecting the official conduct of the members of this body? is
it no crime to publish a bill while before this House? But are printers
at liberty to tell lies about our transactions? The Aurora says, that
the bill which it published had passed the Senate; this every member
knows to be contrary to the fact. The bill has not even to the present
moment passed this body, it is still on your table liable to
recommitment, amendment, or rejection. Asking the editor how he came to
print this falsehood, does not go to examine into the private mode by
which conveyance of intelligence is made to that office; there can be no
real intelligence, it being a falsehood. But suppose we have no power
over this editor, because the press is free; suppose we cannot punish
him for his slander, calumny, and falsehood, perhaps the inquiry may
lead us to discover some persons whom we can punish; will it be said
that the constitution is an impediment in our way to punish one of our
own members, if he should be found guilty of abusing the confidence of
his situation? At least we can exercise the power of removing one of our
officers, if we should convict him of a secret league to transmit
intelligence which is confidentially intrusted to his care.

He did not mean to insinuate that any improper mode was used in
conveying this intelligence; it might appear that the whole circumstance
was a mere unintentional error; if so he should not go farther; but yet
the printer could hardly have made the subsequent mistake in relation to
the gentleman from South Carolina, in declaring that he had never been
consulted by the committee on Mr. Ross's bill; there was something in
this calculated to produce an effect upon the public mind. He insinuates
that the business of the Senate is done in caucuses, into which the
gentleman was not permitted to enter; for if he had, it is supposed he
might have detected and defeated the mischiefs which are working against
the public welfare. This is an abandoned slander, as is well known to
every member of the House, for Mr. PINCKNEY did attend not one meeting
only, as the editor of the Aurora squeezed out some days subsequent to
his first licentious publication, but he did attend every meeting, as he
has candidly and honorably avowed in his place.

The gentlemen had declared themselves the champions of the press; but
surely gentlemen will not advocate such liberty as this--the liberty of
publishing nothing but lies and falsehood. If by the liberty of the
press is meant the publication of truth and just political information,
it was proper to be supported; but he was desirous of maintaining, along
with the liberty of the press, the liberty of the citizens, and the
security of the Government; he was not for sacrificing these latter
objects to the licentiousness of the press. He was not inclined to enter
into a newspaper controversy to maintain the dignity and reputation of
the Senate, nor did he think that gentlemen appreciated their own
standing in society when they referred the individual members of this
body to such a mode of defence against the shafts of calumny which a
daring editor might hurl against them individually.

Mr. BLOODWORTH, of North Carolina, doubted the power of the Senate to
take cognizance of the conduct of members in communicating with their
constituents, much less to punish them for publishing circumstances
respecting which no injunction of secrecy had been imposed. He, however,
assured the Senate that he had not given the editor of the Aurora any
information on the subject before them, or indeed on any other, for the
editor was a stranger to him; nor did he know that he ever called, at
that printing office more than once or twice in his life. He hoped that
the business would be postponed for the present, and he should have no
objection to its being taken up at a future day, when gentlemen might be
better prepared to meet it.

Mr. PAINE, of Vermont, declared himself against the postponement, nor
did he think that the motion of Mr. PINCKNEY was so inconsistent with
the motion before the House as to render a postponement necessary; he
thought the committee might inquire, and although the gentleman would
stop, by his proposition, from proceeding in case it turned out to be a
fabrication of the editor of the Aurora, yet if it should be found not a
fabrication of his, but that of a member or an officer of the House, it
was admitted they might progress, without infringing the sacred liberty
of the press. Suppose that some person in the gallery should have
furnished the spurious matter--and that may possibly be the case--will
the sacred liberty of the press be violated if we order the doorkeeper
to turn him out, and refuse him access in future? He thought the
resolutions might be amended so as to give greater satisfaction than
they do at present; for his own part he was not willing to declare all
at present which they contained. He thought the business would be
simplified if the committee were directed to consider and report what
measures would be proper to adopt in respect to a publication containing
various untruths of the proceedings of the Senate, and if the question
of postponement was lost he meant to move several amendments for that
purpose.

Mr. MASON, of Virginia, had no objection to meet the question at the
present moment, but he thought it of such importance, both to the Senate
and the citizens of the United States, that it should be taken up and
discussed in a solemn and serious manner; not hastily and lightly, as
some gentlemen seemed to think who were opposed to the postponement for
a few days; if, however, the opposition to the postponement was
persisted in, he had no doubt but the subject would prove itself well
worth a discussion of several days, and that the ultimate decision would
not be made till a period more remote than that moved for by his friend
from South Carolina. He therefore recommended to gentlemen to explore
well the ground which the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut had
taken, and consider seriously of the consequences to which they would be
led in pursuing their object. What was to be the course of their
proceeding? What were the embarrassments likely to arise therein? He
called the House to view the delicacy of the situation in which they
would be involved while defining their newly discovered privileges and
subverting the old acknowledged privileges of the liberty of the press;
he said the delicacy of their situation, because he considered it a
delicate one, for he was far from believing that the privileges of the
Senate were as unlimited as the gentleman from Connecticut contended
they were; if so, and they proceed to touch the liberty of the press,
which they may discover in the end to be secured against the invasion,
they will be compelled to retrace every step they are now taking, which
will neither redound to their honor nor discernment. They should be
careful how they expose themselves to popular scrutiny in cases
respecting their own power, for the public mind had been already
considerably agitated, at what many conceived to be an unconstitutional
exercise of power. If, session after session, attempts were made to
fetter the freedom of the press, the people of the United States would
watch with anxious regard every movement of this body. A measure which
originated in the Senate, and was subsequently acceded to by the other
branch of the Legislature, had been just ground of alarm. It is no
wonder that they watch our bills as well as our laws, for it must be
recollected by many of the gentlemen who hear me, that the bill called
the Sedition Bill was first introduced here, and that, instead of being
what it afterwards became, it was a bill more particularly to define
treason and sedition. The good sense of the House, during the time it
was upon the table and undergoing a political dissection, cut off from
it many of those monstrous excrescences which at first disfigured it,
and at last trimmed it into a shapely form; but after all it was removed
below stairs in a condition not fit to meet the eye of our
constituents--even obliged to undergo a decapitation; the head or the
title of it was struck off, and instead of being a bill defining
treason--which is a thing totally out of our power, the constitution
having declared in what alone treason should consist--instead of being
denominated a bill against sedition, it took the obnoxious head of being
a bill to amend the law for punishing certain crimes against the United
States.

Mr. ANDERSON, of Tennessee, did not rise with an intention of entering
into the merits of the general question, as to the extent of the
privileges of the Senate, which he conceived to be of great moment, but
merely to remark, as gentlemen alleged that the public mind was already
agitated on the subject, the postponement would tend to increase the
degree of agitation, which he conceived it was the wish of gentlemen on
both sides to have allayed as soon as possible. He therefore concluded
that it would be better to go on with the business and come as soon as
possible to a decision. One gentleman had said it ought to go to the
judicial courts, and that the Attorney General should be directed to
prosecute: well, then, that gentleman should give his consent to send
the business to a committee, in order to inquire whether the case would
warrant this interference.

Mr. READ, of South Carolina, would not oppose the motion of his
honorable colleague for a postponement, if he had required it on his own
account, or if its being negatived would prevent him from bringing
forward the preamble and resolution he had read in his place, and at a
proper time of having them discussed; but neither of these circumstances
were urged; therefore, as his colleague neither required time for
preparation nor would be prevented from offering and supporting the
intended amendment, he should vote against the postponement.

Mr. DAYTON had the highest confidence in the honor of the gentleman from
South Carolina, (Mr. PINCKNEY,) and he never suffered himself to doubt
of the truth of the declaration which had been made. He thought the
resolutions might be varied so as to get rid of the idea which the
gentleman objected to, in respect to the motion having been brought
forward at his instance; and might be amended as suggested by the
gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. PAINE,) so as to reconcile it still more to
the sentiments of the Senate. This being his view of the subject, he
wished the business to proceed, and should therefore vote against the
postponement.

The question on postponing till Tuesday next, was now put, and the yeas
and nays being called, stood yeas 9, nays 19, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke, Franklin,
      Langdon, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Foster,
      Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Laurance, Livermore,
      Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, Watson and
      Wells.

So the motion was lost.

Mr. NICHOLAS, of Virginia, wished to ask for information. Was it
intended by this resolution to charge the committee with inquiring into
a breach of privilege as it respected the majority of this body? For the
resolution itself furnished no correct idea on this point. He wished
also to know whether it was intended that the Senate should declare that
the publication was a breach of privilege?

Mr. TRACY, of Connecticut, said that if the gentleman wished for
information from him, he would endeavor to give it. He conceived it
would be better to pursue the mode of inquiry in the first instance,
through the intervention of a committee, and not make at once a decision
whether the publication was or was not a breach of privilege; and
further, that the committee should report to the Senate what other
matters were the proper subjects for the Senate's inquiry. He would not
undertake to say at this time whether there was a breach of privilege at
all, or whether that breach was in respect to a majority of the House,
or of the privilege of a single member.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky, was of opinion that if the subject itself was
a proper one to be inquired into, then the mode was well devised, and
one liable to few or no objections; but there was another circumstance
to which he begged permission to call the attention of the Senate. He
observed that the resolution pointed only to one object, and that was
the publications in the Aurora; he did not think this went far enough,
if it was intended to be any thing more than a party manoeuvre. If
gentlemen meant to defend the honor of this body, they should avoid any
thing like partiality, and direct their inquiry to all breaches of
privilege, by publications in newspapers, let their publishers be whom
they might. Believing that the gentlemen were serious in the present
undertaking, he wished them to give it the appearance of impartiality
without which it would reflect disgrace on their proceedings. Gentlemen
have complained of the slander and calumny thrown upon them by the
publications in the Aurora, but, however detestable they might be, he
held in his hand one still more vile and flagrant. He would read it, and
then move to amend the resolution before the House by adding that the
committee be directed to inquire who is the editor of the United States
Gazette, and by what authority he published in that paper the following
paragraphs.

It passed in the negative--yeas 11, nays 16, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Lloyd, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and
      Pinckney.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Foster, Greene,
      Gunn, Hillhouse, Laurance, Livermore, Paine, Read, Ross,
      Schureman, Tracy, Watson, and Wells.

_The Judiciary._

Agreeably to notice given yesterday, Mr. PINCKNEY had leave to bring in
a bill to amend the act entitled "An act to establish the Judicial
Courts of the United States"; which was read and ordered to the second
reading.

On introducing the above bill Mr. PINCKNEY addressed the chair as
follows:

Mr. PRESIDENT: When I first had the honor of addressing you on this
subject it appeared to me necessary to move an amendment to the
constitution; on reflection, however, I am since convinced that the more
regular and expeditious mode would be to move an amendment to the law
establishing the Judicial Courts of the United States--by this means the
law may be passed during the present session, and we shall the more
readily obtain the limitation we contend for.

As the Judiciary is among the most important departments in our
Government, as it reaches every situation in society--neither the rich,
the honored, nor the humble, being without its influence or above its
control--as it is the department to which not only the lives and
fortunes, but the characters of our citizens are peculiarly intrusted,
it becomes us to be extremely careful that the Judges should not only be
able and honest men, but independent in their situation. Our
constitution has in some degree secured their independence by giving
them permanent salaries, and rendering them ineligible to the
Legislature; but in vain will we consider them independent, in vain may
we suppose their opinion beyond the control or interference of the
Executive, until we have determined it shall not be in his power to give
them additional offices and emoluments, while Judges; until, in short,
we confine them wholly to their duties as Judges, and teach them to
believe that in the execution of the laws they should consider
themselves as little obliged to please the President, or to fear his
disapprobation, as that of any other man in the Government. This can
only be done by preventing them accepting other offices, while they
continue as Judges, and thus depriving him of the power of heaping upon
them additional favors and emoluments.

It is an established maxim, and I hope will for ever remain so, that the
Legislature and Judiciary should be as distinct as the nature of our
Government will admit; that is, that the same men shall not, in a
deliberative capacity, agree to measures which they shall afterwards
have a right to explain and decide upon in a judicial one. The reason is
obvious; that the Judges should, in a calm and unprejudiced manner,
explain what the law literally is, and not what it ought to be; that
they should not be allowed to carry upon the bench those passions and
prejudices which too frequently prevail in the adoption and formation of
legislative acts and treaties, and which never fail to give an
irresistible bias to the opinions of a Judge who has been concerned in
making them. The truth of this reasoning is now so generally conceded,
that there is not a man who knows any thing of government that will
attempt to controvert it; the constitutions of all the States have
sanctioned it, and if the opinions of the Federal Convention ought to
have weight, they so strongly insisted upon it as even to refuse, after
repeated trials, associating the Judges with the President in the
exercise of his revisionary power; indeed a gentleman high in office,
and who held both situations at the same time as Judge and Envoy, is
himself decidedly of this opinion, for in his charge to the Eastern
juries he has these expressions:

      "Wise and virtuous men have thought and reasoned very
      differently respecting Government; but in this they have at
      length very unanimously agreed, viz: "that its powers
      should be divided into three distinct independent
      departments, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. But
      how to constitute and balance them so as best to guard
      against abuse and fluctuation, and preserve the
      constitution from encroachments, are points on which there
      continues to be a great diversity of opinions, and on which
      we all have as yet much to learn. The Constitution of the
      United States has therefore instituted these departments,
      and much pains have been taken so to form and define them,
      as that they may operate as checks one upon the other, and
      keep each within its proper limits: it being universally
      agreed to be of the last importance to a free people, that
      those who are vested with Legislative, Executive, and
      Judicial powers should rest satisfied with their respective
      portions of power; and neither encroach on the provinces of
      each other, nor suffer themselves or the others to
      intermeddle with the rights reserved by the constitution to
      the people.""

If, then, there can be no doubt of its propriety when applied to a
Judge, in ordinary cases, how much more forcibly does it apply to an
Envoy who concludes a treaty, which when ratified is to become the
supreme law of the land; how strongly must the negotiation of so
important and in many instances so difficult a business, be impressed on
his mind! He will no doubt retain the journals of his proceedings and
opinions, and perfectly recollect the progress and termination of every
proposal which was compromised or rejected. It must be difficult for him
to forget the attempts to which ministers are sometimes liable in
condescending where their object is honorable; he will remember what his
opinions were upon particular points; and, whether they were successful
or not, his general character may be that of not very easily yielding
them. In short, it is impossible for him to be that cool and unbiased
interpreter of the treaty which he otherwise might have been, had he not
been concerned in concluding it.

The constitution contemplates an independent Judiciary. The public,
therefore, will expect and have a right to demand, upon a questions, a
fair and impartial trial by Judges, whose minds are open to conviction,
and unprejudiced by party opinions; by men who have not been concerned
in forming a law or treaty, but who are totally unfettered by the
recollection of what passed at the negotiation, or what might have been
wished or expected by either party, as judges, candidly and impartially
to determine upon every question that may come before them.

These reasons are certainly sufficient to convince any one that this
provision is necessary to the independence of the Judges, and the pure
and unbiased exposition of the laws: that unless it is done, their
independence is a visionary and unfounded thing. That if the President
can hold out to the Judges the temptation of being Envoys, or of giving
them other offices, and that he still can continue them as Judges, that
on any question in which the President or his friends, or the
Government may be concerned, it might have a tendency to influence them
in opinion; that it was not frequently to be expected they would be
unmindful from whom they received the present appointments, or so
entirely indifferent to their own, or the advancement of their families
as not sometimes to recollect that from the same source other and
greater emoluments might in future be derived; that ingratitude was not
often the vice of public officers while their patron continued in power;
that on subjects where his character, his feelings, or the public
opinion of his acts were in question, our Judges might reasonably be
expected not to be charged with apathy or inattention; and that the true
way to assert the dignity of the President and the honor and
independence of the Judges, was to place it out of the power of the one
to offer, and the other to accept additional favors.

That a Judge ought never to be absent from the United States, or be
drawn from his official situation and leave an undue proportion of its
duties to be performed by the remainder of the bench; that the number of
Judges were exactly proportioned to the duties they were to perform;
that to withdraw one and be incapable of supplying the vacancy, was not
only to require the inexecution of the laws in some parts of the Union,
but to invidiously harass the other, while a favorite or possibly too
complying a Judge was sent to gratify his curiosity or indulge his taste
on some agreeable or easy mission.

That no man ought to hold two offices under the same Government,
particularly where they were important; that most of the States had
regulations to prevent this, and that nothing more contributed to the
extravagance of a Government or the corruption and immorality of its
citizens, than the power to heap many lucrative and perhaps useless
offices on the same person; that it had a tendency to make them servile,
to render them the tools and sycophants of men in power, and to degrade
the character of office.

That in case of the impeachment of the President of the United States,
the Chief Justice was to preside, and there was no provision in the
constitution to supply the vacancy; therefore, if an impeachment was to
take place in his absence, it must remain undecided until the Chief
Justice could be sent for; that this, if recollected by the Executive,
should of itself have been an insuperable objection--in point of
propriety, it always is so, but in point of delicacy it ought most
strongly to have been so, because, here the President, is the officer,
and indeed the only one, who is implicated in the possibility of its
inconvenience arising from absence of the Chief Justice. It is true it
is to be presumed that the man who is elected by his countrymen to
administer the important office of President, will be always so wise and
virtuous as to make it very unlikely an impeachment of him should take
place--the thing, however, is possible. In times of difficulty where
opinions run high, and where those opinions are strongly divided between
numerous and powerful parties, it is impossible to foretell what may
happen. No man is said to be wise at all times, and our own experience
and intercourse with the world must convince us that there are moments
of enthusiasm, or of heat, or surprise, when the most cautious men are
not quite so prudent as others. I will therefore ask, and do it with
great deference, as the President is the only officer on whose trial the
Chief Justice is to preside, or on whose impeachment his absence would
be a public inconvenience, is it not perhaps presuming too far on his
own infallibility or incapacity to err, to send the only officer to a
distant country, without whose presence, in case of an impeachment, a
court could not be formed to try him? I ask it with deference, and am
sure these observations must have escaped the Executive, or the Chief
Justice never would have been sent.

To evince the absolute necessity of some provision being made, it is to
be observed that, as the law stands now, a Judge might not only accept
any other appointment from the Executive of the Union, but he may accept
them from the individual States, or, what is still more dangerous, from
a foreign power, and thus become the minion of the one or the tool of
the other, as circumstances or his own interest may prompt him. Few men
will deny the necessity of some provision here, and that the present is
an unwise and degrading situation for a national Judiciary. Most of the
States have carefully guarded their tribunals against a danger of this
kind. The State of South Carolina, to which I belong, is remarkably
express on this subject. Aware of the necessity of an independent
judiciary, her constitution, in speaking of that department, has these
words: "nor shall the Judges, hold any other office of profit or trust
under this State, the United States, or any other power," a prohibition
not more complete or full than ought to exist in the case of the Federal
Judges.

A strange doctrine has lately been circulated, which it is my duty to
remark on--it is, that this bill is to be considered as a reflection on
the President for nominating a Chief Justice, and the Senate for having
confirmed it, and that the Senate, by agreeing to it, will join in the
censure.[46] Being always ready to approve, and to praise what is
meritorious, it is with great reluctance I can ever be brought to
censure--I have no such intention at present. I can readily believe that
many of the inconveniences I have mentioned may have escaped the
President in the recent nomination. It is here I have always disliked
it. I believe the general sentiment to be against it; but, be that as it
may, no such reason ought ever to have weight in this House. If the
thing is right, if it is now considered as proper for us to say, that
the Judges must stay at home, and be confined to their judicial duties,
and hold no other offices while Judges, we should do it, and not
consider whether it is pleasing or otherwise to the President; he must
understand public business too well to consider it in the nature of a
reflection. We every day alter existing laws and regulations, without
considering such changes as reflections on a preceding Legislature or
President, and I should be sorry to suppose, that, while a bill was
under discussion, the fear of displeasing the Executive should ever be
used as a reason for its rejection. He has always a right to give his
opinion in the exercise of his revisionary authority, and when he does,
we will deliberately and respectfully attend to it. One remark more, and
I shall no longer trespass on the patience of the House: it is, that a
reason has been given for leaving the President at liberty to send a
Judge on any delicate or difficult mission, which I do not conceive
reputable either to the political or literary character of our
country--it is said the Judges may be the most able and qualified men
the President can find, and that being prevented from sending one of
them, he may sometimes be obliged to send inferior and less important
characters, and that the public interest might suffer. How far the
present or any former supreme bench may justify the observation it is
not for us to say, but never will I suppose that among a people so
numerous and enlightened, so alive to their country's welfare, and
hundreds, perhaps thousands of whom are so devoted to public business,
can only six men be found capable of discharging any political duties
that Government might require; the idea is too degrading to our national
character to be entertained for a moment. For these reasons I have
thought it my duty to introduce this bill, and I trust it will pass and
become a law.


SATURDAY, March 8.

_Breach of Privilege._

And, on motion to agree to the original motion as amended, it passed in
the affirmative--yeas 19, nays 8, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Chipman, Dayton, Foster, Goodhue,
      Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd,
      Marshall, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, Watson, and
      Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke, Franklin,
      Langdon, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

So it was

_Resolved_, That the Committee of Privileges be, and they are hereby,
directed to consider and report what measures it will be proper for the
Senate to adopt, in relation to a publication in the newspaper, printed
in the city of Philadelphia, on Wednesday morning the 19th of February,
1800, called the General Advertiser, or Aurora; in which it is asserted,
that the bill prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elections of
PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES had passed the
Senate, when in fact it had not passed; in which it is also asserted,
that the honorable Mr. Pinckney, a Senator from the State of South
Carolina, and a member of the committee who brought before the Senate
the bill aforesaid, had never been consulted on the subject; whereas, in
fact, he was present at each meeting of the committee; and, generally,
to report what measures ought to be adopted in relation to sundry
expressions contained in said paper, respecting the Senate of the United
States, and the members thereof, in their official capacity.


TUESDAY, March 18.

_Breach of Privilege._

The Senate took into consideration the report of the Committee of
Privileges, on the measures that will be necessary to adopt in relation
to a publication in the newspaper, printed in the city of Philadelphia,
on Wednesday morning, the 19th of February last, called the General
Advertiser, or Aurora; and,

On motion to adopt the first resolution reported, it was agreed to
divide the motion, and that the question should be taken on the
following words:

      _Resolved_, That the said publication contains assertions,
      and pretended information, respecting the Senate, and the
      Committee of the Senate, and their proceedings, which are
      false, defamatory, scandalous, and malicious; tending to
      defame the Senate of the United States, and to bring them
      into contempt and disrepute, and to excite against them the
      hatred of the good people of the United States.

And on the question, to adopt this part of the resolution, reported by
the committee, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 20, nays 8, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bingham, Brown, Chipman, Dayton,
      Dexter, Foster, Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Laurance,
      Livermore, Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and
      Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke, Franklin,
      Langdon, Marshall, Mason, and Nicholas.


WEDNESDAY, March 19.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of
Privileges, on the measures proper to adopt in relation to a publication
in the newspaper called the Aurora, of the 19th of February last; and it
was agreed to amend the second member of the first resolution reported,
as follows: "and that the said publication is a high breach of the
privileges of this House;" and, on the question to agree thereto, as
amended, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 11, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dexter, Foster, Goodhue,
      Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, Paine,
      Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.


THURSDAY, March 20.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of
Privileges, on the measures proper to be adopted in relation to a
publication of the 19th of February last, in the newspaper called the
Aurora; and it was agreed to fill the blanks in the second resolution
reported, with the words "Monday 24th, twelve o'clock," and, at the
close of the resolution, with the words "twenty-second;" and,

On motion, to adopt this part of the report, as follows:

      _Resolved_, That William Duane, now residing in the city of
      Philadelphia, the editor of the said newspaper called the
      General Advertiser, or Aurora, be, and he is hereby,
      ordered to attend at the bar of this House, on Monday, the
      24th day of March inst., at 12 o'clock, at which time he
      will have an opportunity to make any proper defence for his
      conduct, in publishing the aforesaid false, defamatory,
      scandalous, and malicious assertions, and pretended
      information; and the Senate will then proceed to take
      further order on the subject; and a copy of this and the
      foregoing resolution, under the authentication of the
      Secretary of the Senate of the United States, and attested
      as a true copy by James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms for the
      said Senate, and left by the said Sergeant-at-Arms with the
      said William Duane, or at the office of the Aurora, on or
      before the twenty-second day of March instant, shall be
      deemed sufficient notice for the said Duane to attend in
      obedience to this resolution:

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 10, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster,
      Goodhue, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Laurance, Livermore,
      Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

So the report of the committee was adopted, as follows:

      Whereas, on the 19th day of February, now last past, the
      Senate of the United States, being in session, in the city
      of Philadelphia, the following publication was made in the
      newspaper, printed in the said city of Philadelphia, called
      the General Advertiser, or Aurora, viz:

      "In our paper of the 27th ult. we noticed the introduction
      of a measure into the Senate of the United States, by Mr.
      Ross, calculated to influence and affect the approaching
      Presidential election, and to frustrate, in a particular
      manner, the wishes and interests of the people of the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

      "We this day lay before the public a copy of that bill as
      it has passed the Senate.

      "Some curious facts are connected with this measure, and
      the people of the Union at large are intermediately, and
      the people of this State immediately interested to consider
      the movements, the mode of operation, and the effects.

      "We noticed a few days ago the caucuses (or secret
      consultations) held in the Senate Chamber. An attempt was
      made in an evening paper to give a counteraction (for these
      people are admirable at the system of intrigue) to the
      development of the Aurora, and to call those meetings
      jacobinical; we must cordially assent to the jacobinism of
      those meetings--they were in the perfect spirit of a
      jacobinical conclave.

      "The plain facts we stated are, however, unquestionable;
      but we have additional information to give on the subject
      of those meetings. We stated, that intrigues for the
      Presidential election were among the objects; we now state
      it as a fact that cannot be disputed upon fair ground, that
      the bill we this day present was discussed at the caucus on
      Wednesday evening last.

      "It is worthy of remark how this bill grew into existence.

      "The opponents of independence and republican Government,
      who supported Mr. Ross in the contest against Governor
      McKean, are well known by the indecency, the slander, and
      the falsehood of the measures they pursued--and it is well
      known that they are all devoted to the Federal party, which
      we dissected on Monday. Mr. Ross proposed this bill in the
      Federal Senate, (how consistently with the decency of his
      friends will be seen;) a committee of five was appointed to
      prepare a bill on the subject: on this committee, Mr.
      Pinckney, of South Carolina, was appointed. On Thursday
      morning last (the caucus held the preceding evening) Mr.
      Ross informed Mr. Pinckney that the committee had drawn up
      a bill on the subject, when in fact Mr. Pinckney had never
      been consulted on the subject, though a member of the
      committee! The bill was introduced and passed as below.

      "On this occasion it may not be impertinent to introduce an
      anecdote which will illustrate the nature of caucuses, and
      show that our popular Government may, in the hands of a
      faction, be as completely abused as the French Constitution
      has been, by the self-created Consuls:

      "In the summer session of 1798, when Federal thunder and
      violence were belched from the pestiferous lungs of more
      than one despotic minion, a caucus was held at the house of
      Mr. Bingham, in this city. It was composed of members of
      the Senate, and there were present seventeen members. The
      Senate consisting of thirty-two members, this number was of
      course a majority, and the session was a full one.

      "Prior to deliberation on the measures of war, navy, army,
      democratic proscription, &c., it was proposed, and agreed
      to, that all the members present should solemnly pledge
      themselves to act firmly upon the measures to be agreed
      upon by the majority of the persons present at the caucus.

      "The measures were perfectly in the high tone of that
      extraordinary session. But upon a division of the caucus it
      was found that they were divided, nine against eight. This
      majority, however, held the minority to their engagement,
      and the whole seventeen voted in Senate upon all the
      measures discussed at the caucus.

      "Thus it is seen that a secret self-appointed meeting of
      seventeen persons dictated laws to the United States, and
      not only that nine of that seventeen had the full command
      and power over the consciences and votes of the other
      eight, but that nine possessed, by the turpitude of the
      eight, actually all the power which the constitution
      declares shall be vested in the majority only. In other
      words, a minority of nine members of the Senate ruled the
      other twenty-three members.

      "It is easily conceivable, as in the recent changes in
      France, that this spirit of caucusing may be conducted in
      progression down to two or three persons; thus three
      leading characters may agree to act upon measures approved
      by any two of them; these three may add two others, and
      they would be a majority of five: and those adding four
      others would be a majority of nine; and this nine possess
      all the power of a majority of twenty-three!

      "Yet such is the way we are treated by those who call
      themselves Federalists.

      "The following bill is an offspring of this spirit of
      faction secretly working; and it will be found to be in
      perfect accord with the outrageous proceedings of the same
      party in our State Legislature, who are bent on depriving
      this State of its share in an election that may involve the
      fate of the country and posterity."

      _Resolved_, That the said publication contains assertions
      and pretended information, respecting the Senate, and the
      Committee of the Senate and their proceedings, which are
      false, defamatory, scandalous, and malicious, tending to
      defame the Senate of the United States, and to bring them
      into contempt and disrepute, and to excite against them the
      hatred of the good people of the United States: and that
      the said publication is a high breach of the privileges of
      this House.

      _Resolved_, That William Duane, now residing in the city of
      Philadelphia, the editor of the said newspaper called the
      General Advertiser, or Aurora, be, and he is hereby,
      ordered to attend at the bar of this House on Monday, the
      24th day of March, inst., at 12 o'clock, at which time he
      will have opportunity to make any proper defence for his
      conduct, in publishing the aforesaid false, defamatory,
      scandalous, and malicious, assertions and pretended
      information; and the Senate will then proceed to take
      further order on the subject: and a copy of this and the
      foregoing resolution, under the authentication of the
      Secretary of the Senate of the United States, and attested
      as a true copy by James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms for the
      said Senate, and left by the said Sergeant-at-Arms with the
      said William Duane, or at the office of the Aurora, on or
      before the twenty-second day of March, instant, shall be
      deemed sufficient notice for the said Duane to attend in
      obedience to this resolution.


SATURDAY, March 22.

Mr. DAYTON, from the Committee of Privileges, to whom it was referred to
prepare and lay before the Senate a form of proceedings in the case of
William Duane, reported in part; which report was read, amended, and
agreed to, as follows:

      When William Duane shall present himself at the bar of the
      House, in obedience to the order of the 20th inst., the
      President of the Senate is to address him as follows:

      1st. William Duane:

      You stand charged by the Senate of the United States, as
      editor of the newspaper called the General Advertiser, or
      Aurora, of having published in the same, on the 19th of
      February, now last past, false, scandalous, defamatory, and
      malicious assertions, and pretended information, respecting
      the said Senate and Committee of the Senate, and their
      proceedings, tending to defame the Senate of the United
      States, and to bring them into contempt and disrepute, and
      to excite against them the hatred of the good people of the
      United States; and therein to have been guilty of a high
      breach of the privileges of this House.

      Then the Secretary shall read the resolutions of the
      Senate, passed the 20th instant, with the preamble; after
      which the President is to proceed as follows, viz:

      1st. Have you any thing to say in excuse or extenuation for
      said publication?

      2dly. If he shall make no answer, the Sergeant-at-Arms
      shall take him into custody, and retire with him from the
      Senate Chamber until the Senate shall be ready for a
      decision, at which time the Sergeant-at-Arms shall again
      set him at the bar of the House, and the President of the
      Senate is to pronounce to him the decision.

      3dly. If he shall answer, he is to continue at the bar of
      the House until the testimony (if any be adduced) shall be
      closed, and he shall retire while the Senate are
      deliberating on the case; and when a decision is agreed
      upon, the said Duane, being notified of the time by the
      Sergeant-at-Arms, verbally, or by a written notice left at
      his office, shall appear at the bar of the House, and the
      President of the Senate is to pronounce to him the
      decision.


MONDAY, March 24.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter, signed William Duane,
requesting to be heard by counsel, and have process awarded to compel
the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, on the summons served on him
the 22d inst., for a high breach of the privileges of the Senate; which
letter was read.

A motion was made that William Duane be permitted to be heard by
counsel, agreeably to his request; and, after debate, the said William
Duane appeared at the bar of the House, agreeably to the summons of the
22d instant; a return thereon having been made in the words following:

      CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, _March 21, 1800_.

      Then I, the subscriber, Sergeant-at-Arms for the Senate of
      the United States, left a true and attested copy of the
      within at the office of the Aurora.

                          JAMES MATHERS.

And the charge against the said William Duane having been read, he
repeated his request to be heard by counsel.

On which he was ordered to withdraw, and a motion was made as follows:

      _Resolved_, That, William Duane be permitted to be heard by
      counsel, he having appeared, agreeably to the order of the
      Senate, and requested that he might be heard by counsel.

On which a motion was made to strike out all the motion subsequent to
the word "Duane," and insert:

      Having appeared at the bar of the Senate and requested to
      be heard by counsel, on the charge against him for a breach
      of privileges of the Senate, he be allowed the assistance
      of counsel while personally attending at the bar of the
      Senate; who may be heard in denial of any facts charged
      against said Duane, or in excuse and extenuation of his
      offence.

And it was agreed to divide the motion, and that the question be taken
on striking out; which passed in the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 11, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster,
      Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore,
      Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

A motion was made to amend the amendment by striking out these words "he
be allowed the assistance of counsel while personally attending the bar
of the Senate; who may be heard in denial of any facts charged against
said Duane, or in excuse and extenuation of his offence;" and to insert
"he be permitted to have assistance of counsel for his defence;" and it
was agreed to divide the motion, and that the question should be taken
on striking out, which passed in the negative--yeas 10, nays 18, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, and Nicholas.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster,
      Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore,
      Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

And, on the question to agree to the original amendment, it passed in
the affirmative--yeas 21, nays 8, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bingham, Bloodworth, Chipman,
      Dayton, Dexter, Foster, Franklin, Goodhue, Greene,
      Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, Paine,
      Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brown, Cocke, Langdon, Marshall,
      Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

And the question being taken on the motion as amended, it was

_Resolved_, That William Duane having appeared at the bar of the Senate,
and requested to be heard by counsel, on the charge against him for a
breach of privileges of the Senate, he be allowed the assistance of
counsel while personally attending at the bar of the Senate, who may be
heard in denial of any facts charged against said Duane, or in excuse
and extenuation of his offence.

A motion was made that it be an instruction to the Committee of
Privileges to report in what manner witnesses shall be compelled to
attend the Senate in support of the charge against William Duane, and in
his defence against that charge.

And, after debate, the further consideration thereof was postponed.

_Resolved_, That a copy of the resolution last agreed to be sent to
William Duane, and at the same time, he be ordered to attend at the bar
of this House at 12 o'clock, on Wednesday next.


WEDNESDAY, March 26.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter signed William Duane, stating
that he had received "an authenticated copy of the resolution of Monday
last in his case," and enclosing certain papers stated to be a
correspondence between him and his intended counsel, marked A, B, and C,
and that he finds himself "deprived of all professional assistance under
the restrictions which the Senate have thought fit to adopt. He
therefore thinks himself bound, by the most sacred duties, to decline
any further voluntary attendance upon that body, and to leave them to
pursue such measures in this case, as in their wisdom they may deem
meet;" and the letter was read.

On motion that the papers referred to in the letter be read, it passed
in the negative.

On motion, the Senate took into consideration the report of the
Committee of Privileges, who were ordered to prepare and lay before the
Senate a form of proceedings in the case of William Duane; and, after
debate,

The order of the day was called for.

_Ordered_, That the Sergeant-at-Arms, at the bar of the House, do call
William Duane. And the said William Duane did not appear. Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That as William Duane has not appeared at the bar of this
House, in obedience to the order of the 24th instant, and has addressed
a letter to the President of the Senate, which has been read this
morning, in which he refuses any further attendance, his letter be
referred to the Committee of Privileges, to consider and report thereon.

On motion, the Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the
Committee of Privileges of the 25th instant. And on the question to
agree to the first resolution, amended as follows:

      _Resolved_, That all testimony shall be taken by the
      Committee of Privileges, who are hereby authorized to send
      for persons, papers, and records, and compel the attendance
      of witnesses which may become requisite for the execution
      of their commission:

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 11, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster,
      Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore,
      Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

On motion, the 4th resolution was adopted, as follows:

_Resolved_, That all testimony taken by said committee shall be reported
to the Senate, and kept on file by the Secretary.

And having agreed to postpone the other resolutions reported, the Senate
adjourned.


THURSDAY, March 27.

Mr. DAYTON, from the Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred the
letter of William Duane, on the 26th instant, made report, as follows:

      _Resolved_, That William Duane, editor of the General
      Advertiser, or Aurora, having neglected and refused to
      appear at the bar of this House, at 12 o'clock, on the 26th
      day of March instant, pursuant to the order of the 24th
      instant, of which order he had been duly notified; and
      having sent the following letter to the President of the
      Senate, which has been communicated to the Senate, viz:

      "_To the President of the Senate_:

      "SIR: I beg of you to lay before the Senate this
      acknowledgment of my having received an authenticated copy
      of their resolutions on Monday last, in my case. Copies of
      those resolutions I transmitted to Messrs. Dallas and
      Cooper, my intended counsel, soliciting their professional
      aid; a copy of my letter is enclosed marked A. Their
      answers I have also the pleasure to enclose, marked B and
      C. I find myself, in consequence of these answers, deprived
      of all professional assistance, under the restrictions
      which the Senate have thought fit to adopt. I therefore
      think myself bound by the most sacred duties to decline any
      further voluntary attendance upon that body, and leave them
      to pursue such measures in this case, as, in their
      _wisdom_, they may deem meet. I am, sir with perfect
      respect,

                          "WM. DUANE."

      is guilty of a contempt of said order, and of this House,
      and that, for said contempt, he, the said Wm. Duane, be
      taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms attending
      this House, to be kept subject to the further orders of the
      Senate.

On motion to agree to this first resolution reported, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 16, nays 12, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Dayton, Dexter, Foster, Goodhue, Greene,
      Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Lloyd, Paine,
      Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

On motion to strike out these words from the second resolution reported:
"And all marshals, deputy marshals, and civil officers of the United
States, and every other person, are hereby required to be aiding and
assisting to you in the execution thereof:" it passed in the
negative--yeas 10, nays 19, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster,
      Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore,
      Lloyd, Marshall, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and
      Wells.

The second resolution reported was read as follows:

      _Resolved_, That a warrant issue signed by the President of
      the Senate, in the following form, viz:

      UNITED STATES,                }
      _The 27th day of March, 1800_.} SS.

      Whereas the Senate of the United States, on the 18th day of
      March, 1800, then being in session in the city of
      Philadelphia, did resolve that a publication in the General
      Advertiser, or Aurora, a newspaper printed in the said city
      of Philadelphia, on Wednesday, the 19th day of February,
      then last past, contained assertions and pretended
      information respecting the Senate, and Committee of the
      Senate, and their proceedings, which were false,
      defamatory, scandalous, and malicious, tending to defame
      the Senate of the United States, and to bring them into
      contempt and disrepute, and to excite against them the
      hatred of the good people of the United States; and that
      the said publication was a high breach of the privileges of
      the House.

      And whereas the Senate did then further resolve and order,
      that the said William Duane, resident in the said city, and
      editor of said newspaper, should appear at the bar of the
      House, on Monday, the 24th day of March, instant, that he
      might then have opportunity to make any proper defence for
      his conduct in publishing the aforesaid false, defamatory,
      scandalous, and malicious assertions and pretended
      information.

      And whereas the said William Duane did appear on said day
      at the bar of the House, pursuant to said order, and
      requested counsel; and the Senate, by their resolution of
      the 24th day of March, instant,

      _Resolved_, That William Duane, having appeared at the bar
      of the Senate, and requested to be heard by counsel on the
      charge against him for a breach of privileges of the
      Senate, he be allowed the assistance of counsel while
      personally attending at the bar of the Senate, who might be
      heard in denial of any facts charged against said Duane, or
      in excuse and extenuation of his offence, and that the said
      William Duane should attend at the bar of the Senate on
      Wednesday, then next, at 12 o'clock, of which the said
      Duane had due notice.

      And whereas said William Duane, in contempt of the said
      last mentioned order, did neglect and refuse to appear at
      the bar of the said Senate, at the time specified therein;
      and the Senate of the United States, on the 27th day of
      March, instant, did thereupon resolve that the said William
      Duane was guilty of a contempt of said order and of the
      Senate, and that for said contempt he, the said William,
      should be taken into custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms
      attending the Senate, to be kept for their further orders.
      All which appears by the journals of the Senate of the
      United States, now in session in the said city of
      Philadelphia.

      These are, therefore, to require you, James Mathers,
      Sergeant-at-Arms for the Senate of the United States,
      forthwith to take into your custody the body of the said
      William Duane, now resident in the said city of
      Philadelphia, and him safely to keep, subject to the
      further order of the Senate; and all marshals, deputy
      marshals, and civil officers, of the United States, and
      every other person, are hereby required to be aiding and
      assisting to you in the execution thereof; for which it
      shall be your sufficient warrant.

      Given under my hand, this 27th day of March, 1800.

                          THOMAS JEFFERSON,
                          _President of the Senate of the U. S._

On motion to agree to this resolution as reported, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 18, nays 11, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, Dexter, Foster,
      Goodhue, Greene, Hillhouse, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore,
      Lloyd, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

So the report of the committee was adopted.


MONDAY, March 31.

_Respect to Mrs. Washington._

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have passed a bill, entitled "An act to extend the privilege of
franking letters and packages to Martha Washington."


TUESDAY, April 1.

The bill, sent from the House of Representatives entitled "An act to
extend the privilege of franking letters and packages to Martha
Washington," was read the second time; and, by unanimous consent, it was
read the third time and passed.


TUESDAY, April 8.

The bill for the defence of the merchant vessels of the United States
was read the second time, and referred to Messrs. GOODHUE, NICHOLAS, and
TRACY, to consider and report thereon to the Senate.

The bill "for the removal and accommodation of the Government of the
United States" was read the second time and referred to Messrs. ROSS,
LLOYD, and HILLHOUSE, to consider and report thereon to the Senate.

The bill to repeal the "Act laying duties on mills and implements
employed in the manufacture of snuff," was read the second time, and
referred to Messrs. BINGHAM, LIVERMORE, and LAURANCE, to consider and
report thereon to the Senate.

The bill permitting the exportation of some gunpowder, also a number of
muskets and cutlasses, was read the second time and ordered to lie on
the table.

Mr. CHIPMAN, from the committee to whom was referred on the 12th March
last, to inquire what amendments are necessary in the act to establish
the Judicial Courts of the United States, reported a bill on the
subject; which was read and ordered to the second reading.

The Senate took into consideration the report of the committee on the
petition of Thomas Burling and others, inhabitants of the Mississippi
Territory; and the report was adopted.


TUESDAY, April 29.

_Judiciary--Its better Organization._

The Senate took into consideration the report of the committee on the
bill to amend the act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United
States; the first clause of which is as follows:

      Strike out the whole of the bill after the word "serve," in
      third line, and insert "in the Courts of the United States,
      shall be designated by lot, or otherwise, in each State or
      district respectively, according to the mode of forming
      juries, to serve in the highest courts of law therein, now
      practised; so far as the same shall render such designation
      practicable by the Courts and Marshals of the United
      States."

On motion to strike out all that follows the word "otherwise," in the
fourth line of the report, for the purpose of inserting the following:

      "Summoned or procured in each State respectively, according
      to the mode directed and prescribed by the laws of each
      State respectively, so far as such laws shall render the
      same practicable by the Courts or Marshals of the United
      States; and where the State mode cannot be used in the
      Courts of the United States, the Marshal attending such
      Courts shall, every day the Court sits, summon a sufficient
      number of persons to attend the Court that day, that out of
      them may be impannelled sufficient juries for the trial of
      all causes (except cases punishable with death) depending
      in such Courts; and if any person so summoned shall fail to
      attend the Court accordingly, he shall be fined eight
      dollars, to the use of the United States:"

A division of the motion was called for, and the question was taken on
striking out, which passed in the negative--yeas 9, nays 16, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Mason, and Nicholas.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Dayton, Dexter, Foster, Goodhue,
      Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Livermore, Read,
      Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

And it was agreed, that the bill pass to the third reading as
amended.[47]


WEDNESDAY, May 14.

The VICE PRESIDENT having, by letter, intimated his desire to be excused
from further attendance, as it would probably be the last day of the
session, the Senate proceeded to the choice of a President _pro
tempore_, as the constitution provides, and URIAH TRACY was duly
elected.

_Mississippi Slave Act._

The bill entitled "An act to permit, in certain cases, the bringing of
slaves into the Mississippi Territory," was read the third time. On the
question to agree to the final passage thereof, it passed in the
negative--yeas 5, nays 14, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Cocke, Marshall, Pinckney, and
      Read.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bingham, Bloodworth, Brown, Dayton,
      Foster, Franklin, Greene, Hillhouse, Laurance, Livermore,
      Mason, Morris, and Ross.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House disagree to the amendment of the Senate to the bill regulating the
grants of land for the refugees from the British provinces of Canada and
Nova Scotia.

The Senate considered the resolution of the House of Representatives on
the amendment of the Senate to the bill last mentioned.

_Resolved_, That they adhere to their amendment.

Mr. Ross, from the committee on the bill making grants of lands to the
inhabitants of Vincennes, and Illinois country, reported the bill
without amendment, and it was agreed to postpone the bill to the next
session of Congress.

_Adjournment._

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
they have appointed a committee on their part, with such as the Senate
may join, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and notify him
that, unless he hath any further communications to make to the two
Houses of Congress, they are ready to adjourn; and they desire the
appointment of a committee on the part of the Senate.

The Senate agreed to the resolution of the House of Representatives
appointing a committee, jointly with such as the Senate may appoint, to
wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him of the
proposed adjournment of the two Houses of Congress; and it was ordered
that Messrs. BINGHAM and WELLS be the committee on the part of the
Senate.

Mr. BINGHAM reported, from the joint committee last mentioned, that the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES had no further communication to make to
Congress at this time than his best wishes for their safe return to
their respective places of abode.

On motion that it be

      _Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be
      requested to instruct the proper law officer to commence
      and carry on a prosecution against William Duane, editor of
      the newspaper called the Aurora, for certain false,
      defamatory, scandalous, and malicious publications, in the
      said newspaper, on the 19th of February last past, tending
      to defame the Senate of the United States, and to bring
      them into contempt and disrepute, and to excite against
      them the hatred of the good people of the United States:

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 13, nays 4, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Dayton, Foster, Greene, Gunn,
      Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Morris, Read, Ross, Tracy,
      and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke, Franklin.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary lay an attested copy of the foregoing
resolution before the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

_Resolved_, That the thanks of the Senate of the United States be
presented to the Commissioners of the city and county of Philadelphia,
for the convenient and elegant accommodations furnished by them for the
use of the Senate, during the residence of the National Government in
the city; and that the President of the Senate be requested to convey
this resolution in a letter to the said Commissioners.

The PRESIDENT, agreeably to the joint resolution of the 12th instant,
adjourned the Senate, to meet again on the third Monday of November
next, as the law provides.




SIXTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, December 2, 1799.

This being the constitutional day for the annual meeting of Congress,
the following members of the House of Representatives appeared, produced
their credentials, and took their seats, viz:

_From New Hampshire._--ABIEL FOSTER, JONATHAN FREEMAN, and WILLIAM
GORDON.

_From Massachusetts._--BAILEY BARTLETT, PHANUEL BISHOP, DWIGHT FOSTER,
HARRISON G. OTIS, SILAS LEE, SAMUEL LYMAN, JOHN REED, SAMUEL SEWALL,
THEODORE SEDGWICK, WILLIAM SHEPARD, GEORGE THATCHER, JOSEPH B. VARNUM,
PELEG WADSWORTH, and LEMUEL WILLIAMS.

_From Connecticut._--JONATHAN BRACE, SAMUEL W. DANA, JOHN DAVENPORT,
WILLIAM EDMOND, CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, ELIZUR GOODRICH, and ROGER GRISWOLD.

_From Rhode Island._--JOHN BROWN, and CHRISTOPHER G. CHAMPLIN.

_From Vermont._--MATTHEW LYON, and LEWIS R. MORRIS.

_From New York._--THEODORUS BAILEY, JOHN BIRD, WILLIAM COOPER, LUCAS
ELMENDORPH, HENRY GLENN, EDWARD LIVINGSTON, JONAS PLATT, JOHN THOMPSON,
and PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT.

_From New Jersey._--JOHN CONDIT, FRANKLIN DAVENPORT, JAMES H. IMLAY,
AARON KITCHELL, and JAMES LINN.

_From Pennsylvania._--ROBERT BROWN, ANDREW GREGG, ALBERT GALLATIN, JOHN
A. HANNA, JOSEPH HEISTER, JOHN WILKES KITTERA, MICHAEL LEIB, PETER
MUHLENBERG, JOHN SMILIE, RICHARD THOMAS, ROBERT WALN, and HENRY WOODS.

_From Maryland._--GEORGE BAER, WILLIAM CRAIK, GABRIEL CHRISTIE, GEORGE
DENT, JOSEPH H. NICHOLSON, SAMUEL SMITH, and JOHN CHEW THOMAS.

_From Virginia._--JOHN DAWSON, THOMAS EVANS, DAVID HOLMES, GEORGE
JACKSON, JOHN MARSHALL, JOHN NICHOLAS, ANTHONY NEW, LEVEN POWELL, JOHN
RANDOLPH, ABRAM TRIGG, and JOHN TRIGG.

_From North Carolina._--WILLIS ALSTON, JOSEPH DICKSON, ARCHIBALD
HENDERSON, WILLIAM H. HILL, NATHANIEL MACON, RICHARD STANFORD, and DAVID
STONE.

_From South Carolina._--ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, ABRAHAM NOTT, JOHN
RUTLEDGE, Jr., and THOMAS SUMTER.

_From Georgia._--JAMES JONES, BENJAMIN TALIAFERRO.

_From Tennessee._--WILLIAM CHARLES COLE CLAIBORNE.

A quorum of the whole number of members being present, the House
proceeded to the election of a SPEAKER; when, on counting the ballots,
the tellers reported that Mr. SEDGWICK had 42 votes; Mr. MACON, 27; Mr.
DENT, 13; Mr. RUTLEDGE, 2; Mr. SUMTER, 1.

That the whole number of votes was 85, and the rules of the House
requiring a majority of the members present to constitute a choice,
neither of the above gentlemen were elected.

The House then proceeded to a second trial; when Mr. SEDGWICK had 44
votes; Mr. MACON, 38; Mr. DENT, 3; Mr. RUTLEDGE, 1.

Whereupon Mr. SEDGWICK was declared duly elected, and conducted to the
chair accordingly.

Mr. SEDGWICK, upon taking the chair, addressed the House in the
following words:

      "GENTLEMEN: Although I am conscious of a deficiency of the
      talents which are desirable to discharge with usefulness
      and dignity the important duties of the high station to
      which I am raised, by the generous regard of the
      enlightened and virtuous representatives of my country,
      yet, reposing myself on the energy of their candid support,
      I will not shrink from the attempt.

      "Accept, I pray you, gentlemen, my grateful acknowledgment
      of the honor you are pleased to confer; and, with it, an
      assurance, that no consideration shall seduce me to
      deviate, in the least degree, from a direct line of
      impartial integrity."

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that, a
sufficient number of members appearing to form a quorum, they had
proceeded to the choice of a President _pro tempore_, when Hon. SAMUEL
LIVERMORE was elected.

The House proceeded to the choice of a Clerk; when it appeared JONATHAN
W. CONDY had 47 votes, JOHN BECKLEY, 39.

Whereupon Mr. CONDY was declared by the SPEAKER to be duly elected.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate, to inform that body of
the election of the Hon. THEODORE SEDGWICK, as SPEAKER of the House of
Representatives.

On motion of Mr. MACON, the House proceeded to the choice of a
Sergeant-at-Arms, Doorkeeper, and Assistant Doorkeeper; when JOSEPH
WHEATON, THOMAS CLAXTON, and THOMAS DUNN, were unanimously elected.

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 administered by Mr. RUTLEDGE, one of
the Representatives for the State of South Carolina, to the SPEAKER, and
then the same oath or affirmation was administered by Mr. SPEAKER to
each of the members present.

WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON having also appeared, as a Representative for the
territory of the United States north-west of the river Ohio, the said
oath was administered to him by Mr. SPEAKER.

The same affirmation, together with the affirmation 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 they
had passed a resolution, appointing a joint committee to wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and inform him that Congress had met and
were ready to receive any communications he might think proper to make;
and, in case of concurrence, that Messrs. READ and BINGHAM were
appointed a committee on behalf of the Senate.

The House concurred in the resolution, and Messrs. MARSHALL, RUTLEDGE,
and SEWALL, were appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT, in conjunction with
the committee from the SENATE.

The following letter was read by the Speaker.


                          72 WELBECK-STREET, LONDON,
                          _September 20, 1798_.

      SIR: I beg leave, through you, to offer to the House of
      Representatives of the United States, impressions of the
      two prints of the American Revolution, which I have lately
      caused to be published.[48]

      The importance of the events, and the illustrious
      characters of the two great men to whose memory they are
      particularly devoted, give to these works their best claim
      to your notice; and the patriotism of my countrymen, I
      trust, will give them a kinder reception than their
      intrinsic merit might entitle me to hope.

      With great respect, I have the honor to be, sir, your most
      obedient, humble servant,

                          JNO. TRUMBULL.

      The SPEAKER _of the House of Reps. U. S._

_Resolved_, That the rules and orders of proceeding established by the
late House of Representatives, shall be deemed and taken to be the rules
and orders of proceeding to be observed in this House, until a revision
or alteration of the same shall take place.

_Resolved_, That each member be furnished with three newspapers, printed
in this city, during the session, at the expense of this House.

Mr. MARSHALL, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, reported, that they had performed that
service; and that the PRESIDENT had appointed to-morrow forenoon, 12
o'clock, to meet both Houses in the Representatives' Chamber.

The House then adjourned, till to-morrow morning at eleven o'clock.


TUESDAY, December 3.

JAMES A. BAYARD, from Delaware, appeared produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_President's Speech._

_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.

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 addressed them as follows. (For the
Speech, see Senate proceedings, _ante_.)

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES then withdrew and the two Houses
separated.

A copy of the Speech being delivered by the PRESIDENT to the SPEAKER,
and read by the Clerk, it was ordered, that it be committed to a
Committee of the whole House to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, December 4.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said he conceived some notice ought to be taken of the
letter received from Mr. TRUMBULL, and therefore moved that it be
referred to a select committee. Agreed to, and Messrs. LIVINGSTON,
TALIAFERRO, and HILL, were appointed.

_The President's Speech._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the PRESIDENT'S Speech,
Mr. RUTLEDGE in the chair. The Speech having been read,

Mr. MARSHALL moved the following resolution, which was agreed to by the
committee, viz:

      _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, on the
      opening of the present session, containing assurances that
      this House will duly attend to the important objects
      recommended by him to their consideration.

The committee rose, and the resolution having been agreed to by the
House, Messrs. MARSHALL, RUTLEDGE, SEWALL, LIVINGSTON, and NICHOLAS,
were appointed a committee to draft the Address.


FRIDAY, December 6.

Mr. MARSHALL, from the committee appointed to draft an Address in answer
to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, at the commencement
of the present session, reported the same, which was committed to a
Committee of the Whole on Monday next, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, from the committee to whom was referred the letter of
Mr. Trumbull, reported the following resolution, which was adopted by
the House:

      "_Resolved_, That the two elegant prints offered by Mr.
      Trumbull, be accepted; and that the Speaker be instructed
      to write an answer, expressive of the pleasure with which
      this House has observed his genius and talents exerted in
      the patriotic task of celebrating the events which led to
      his country's independence, and dedicated to the memory of
      those heroes who fell in its defence."


MONDAY, December 9.

JOSIAH PARKER and ROBERT PAGE, from Virginia, appeared, produced their
credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

_Address to the President._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the Address
to be presented to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES in answer to his
Speech to both Houses, at the commencement of the present session.

Mr. GREGG moved, that the words distinguished by italics, in the third
and fourth lines of the second paragraph of the Address, be struck out,
and that the words "act in" be inserted in their stead; which produced a
short debate, and was finally negatived.

The committee then rose, and the Address was reported without amendment;
and was agreed to by the House, in the words following, viz:

      _To the President of the United States:_

      SIR: While the House of Representatives contemplate the
      flattering prospects of abundance from the labors of the
      people, by land and by sea, the prosperity of our extended
      commerce, notwithstanding the interruptions occasioned by
      the belligerent state of a great part of the world, the
      return of health, industry and trade, to those cities which
      have lately been afflicted with disease, and the various
      and inestimable advantages, civil and religious, which,
      secured under our happy frame of Government, are continued
      to us unimpaired, we cannot fail to offer up to the
      benevolent Deity our sincere thanks for these the merciful
      dispensations of his protecting Providence.

      That any portion of the people of America should permit
      themselves, amid such numerous blessings, to _be seduced by
      the arts and misrepresentations of designing men into an_
      open resistance of a law of the United States, cannot be
      heard without deep and serious regret. Under a constitution
      where the public burdens can only be imposed by the people
      themselves, for their own benefit, and to promote their own
      objects, a hope might well have been indulged that the
      general interest would have been too well understood, and
      the general welfare too highly prized, to have produced in
      any of our citizens a disposition to hazard so much
      felicity, by the criminal effort of a part, to oppose with
      lawless violence the will of the whole. While we lament
      that depravity which could produce a defiance of the civil
      authority, and render indispensable the aid of the military
      force of the nation, real consolation is to be derived from
      the promptness and fidelity with which that aid was
      afforded. That zealous and active co-operation with the
      judicial power, of the volunteers and militia called into
      service, which has restored order and submission to the
      laws, is a pleasing evidence of the attachment of out
      fellow-citizens to their own free Government, and of the
      truly patriotic alacrity with which they will support it.

      To give due effect to the civil administration of
      Government, and to ensure a just execution of the laws, are
      objects of such real magnitude as to secure proper
      attention to your recommendation of a revision and
      amendment of the judiciary system.

      Highly approving, as we do, the pacific and humane policy
      which has been invariably professed and sincerely pursued
      by the Executive authority of the United States, a policy
      which our best interests enjoined and of which honor has
      permitted the observance, we consider as the most
      unequivocal proof of your inflexible perseverance in the
      same well chosen system, your preparation to meet the first
      indications on the part of the French Republic, of a
      disposition to accommodate the existing differences between
      the two countries, by a nomination of Ministers on certain
      conditions, which the honor of our country unquestionably
      dictated, and which its moderation had certainly given it a
      right to prescribe. When the assurances thus required of
      the French Government, previous to the departure of our
      Envoys, had been given through their Minister of Foreign
      Relations, the direction that they should proceed on their
      mission, was, on your part, a completion of the measure,
      and manifests the sincerity with which it was commenced. We
      offer up our fervent prayers to the Supreme Ruler of the
      Universe for the success of their embassy, and that it may
      be productive of peace and happiness to our common country.
      The uniform tenor of your conduct, through a life useful to
      your fellow-citizens and honorable to yourself, gives a
      sure pledge of the sincerity with which the avowed objects
      of the negotiation will be pursued on your part, and we
      earnestly pray that similar dispositions may be displayed
      on the part of France. The differences which unfortunately
      subsist between the two nations, cannot fail, in that
      event, to be happily terminated. To produce this end, to
      all so desirable, firmness, moderation, and union at home,
      constitute, we are persuaded, the surest means. The
      character of the gentlemen you have deputed, and still
      more, the character of the Government which deputes them,
      are safe pledges to their country, that nothing
      incompatible with its honor or interest, nothing
      inconsistent with our obligations of good faith or
      friendship to any other nation, will be stipulated.

      We learn, with pleasure, that our citizens, with their
      property, trading to those ports of St. Domingo with which
      commercial intercourse has been renewed, have been duly
      respected, and that privateering from those ports has
      ceased.

      With you, we sincerely regret that the execution of the
      sixth article of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and
      Navigation, with Great Britain, an article produced by a
      mutual spirit of amity and justice, should have been
      unavoidably interrupted. We doubt not the same spirit of
      amity, and the same sense of justice in which it
      originated, will lead to satisfactory explanations; and we
      hear with approbation that our Minister at London will be
      immediately instructed to obtain them. While the
      engagements which America has contracted by her treaty with
      Great Britain, ought to be fulfilled with that scrupulous
      punctuality and good faith to which our Government has ever
      so tenaciously adhered, yet no motive exists to induce, and
      every principle forbids us to adopt a construction which
      might extend them beyond the instrument by which they are
      created. We cherish the hope that the Government of Great
      Britain will disclaim such extension, and by cordially
      uniting with that of the United States for the removal of
      all difficulties, will soon enable the boards appointed
      under the sixth and seventh articles of our treaty with
      that nation, to proceed, and bring the business committed
      to them respectively to a satisfactory conclusion.

      The buildings for the accommodation of Congress, and of the
      President, and for the public offices of the Government at
      its permanent seat, being in such a state as to admit of a
      removal to that District by the time prescribed by the act
      of Congress, no obstacle, it is presumed, will exist to a
      compliance with the law.

      With you, sir, we deem the present period critical and
      momentous. The important changes which are occurring, the
      new and great events which are every hour preparing in the
      political world, the spirit of war which is prevalent in
      almost every nation with whose affairs the interests of the
      United States have any connection, demonstrate how unsafe
      and precarious would be our situation, should we neglect
      the means of maintaining our just rights. Respecting, as we
      have ever done, the rights of others, America estimates too
      correctly the value of her own, and has received evidence
      too complete that they are only to be preserved by her own
      vigilance, ever to permit herself to be seduced by a love
      of ease, or by other considerations, into that deadly
      disregard of the means of self-defence, which could only
      result from a carelessness as criminal as it would be fatal
      concerning the future destinies of our growing Republic.
      The result of the mission to France is, indeed, sir,
      uncertain. It depends not on America alone. The most
      pacific temper will not always ensure peace. We should
      therefore exhibit a system of conduct as indiscreet as it
      would be new in the history of the world, if we considered
      the negotiation happily terminated because we have
      attempted to commence it, and peace restored because we
      wish its restoration. But, sir, however this mission may
      terminate, a steady perseverance in a system of national
      defence, commensurate with our resources and the situation
      of our country, is an obvious dictate of duty. Experience,
      the parent of wisdom, and the great instructor of nations,
      has established the truth of your position, that, remotely
      as we are placed from the belligerent nations, and desirous
      as we are, by doing justice to all, to avoid offence to
      any, yet nothing short of the power of repelling
      aggressions will secure to our country a rational prospect
      of escaping the calamities of war or national degradation.

      In the progress of the session, we shall take into our
      serious consideration the various and important matters
      recommended to our attention.

      A life devoted to the service of your country, talents and
      integrity which have so justly acquired and so long
      retained the confidence and affection of your
      fellow-citizens, attest the sincerity of your declaration,
      that it is your anxious desire so to execute the trust
      reposed in you as to render the people of the United States
      prosperous and happy.

_Resolved_, That the SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said
Address.

Messrs. MARSHALL, RUTLEDGE, and SEWALL, were appointed a committee to
wait on the PRESIDENT, to know when and where he would be ready to
receive the Address; and having performed that service, reported, that
the PRESIDENT had appointed to-morrow, two o'clock, for that purpose, at
his own house.

_Delegate from North-west Territory._

_Ordered_, That the credentials of WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON, who has
appeared as a Delegate from the territory of the United States
north-west of the river Ohio, be referred to the Committee of Elections;
and that they be directed to report whether the Territory is entitled to
elect a Delegate who may have a seat in this House.


TUESDAY, December 10.

MATTHEW CLAY, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Address to the President._

The hour having arrived which the PRESIDENT had appointed, Mr. SPEAKER,
attended by the members present, proceeded to the President's house, to
present him their Address in answer to his Speech at the opening of the
present session; and having returned, the PRESIDENT'S reply thereto was
read, as follows:

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

      This very respectful address from the Representatives of
      the people of the United States at their first assembly,
      after a fresh election, under the strong impression of the
      public opinion and national sense, at this interesting and
      singular crisis of our public affairs, has excited my
      sensibility, and receives my sincere and grateful
      acknowledgments.

      As long as we can maintain, with harmony and affection, the
      honor of our country, consistently with its peace,
      externally and internally, while that is attainable, or in
      war, when that becomes necessary, assert its real
      independence and sovereignty, and support the
      constitutional energies and dignity of its government, we
      may be perfectly sure, under the smiles of Divine
      Providence, that we shall effectually promote and extend
      our national interests and happiness.

      The applause of the Senate and House of Representatives, so
      justly bestowed upon the volunteers and militia, for their
      zealous and active co-operation with the judicial power,
      which has restored order and submission to the laws, as it
      comes with peculiar weight and propriety from the
      Legislature, cannot fail to have an extensive and permanent
      effect, for the support of Government, upon all those
      ingenuous minds who receive delight from the approving and
      animating voice of their country.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _December 10_.

And then the House adjourned till to-morrow morning, 11 o'clock.


WEDNESDAY, December 11.

HENRY LEE, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_The Direct Tax Law._

Mr. HARPER said, that a difficulty had arisen in the State of
Pennsylvania, relative to the execution of the law "for the valuation of
lands and dwelling-houses, and for the enumeration of slaves, within the
United States," which the Commissioners for that State did not conceive
themselves competent to decide upon; that the Commissioners had referred
the case to the Secretary of the Treasury, whose opinion it was, that
they were possessed of sufficient power to obviate the difficulties
complained of; but the Commissioners, on again taking the subject into
consideration, were still of opinion they were unable to act without
legislative aid, and therefore had made application to the Committee of
Ways and Means, who, Mr. H. said, had directed him to move for leave to
bring in a bill, further to amend the act entitled "An act to provide
for the valuation of lands and dwelling-houses, and for the enumeration
of slaves within the United States," which was granted.

_Franking Privilege to W. H. Harrison._

Mr. HARPER laid the following resolution on the table.

      _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and
      bring in a bill, extending the privilege of franking to W.
      H. Harrison, a delegate from the territory of the United
      States north-west of the river Ohio, and making provision
      for his compensation.

Mr. H. said, that according to law, that gentleman had the right only of
speaking and giving his opinion upon any question before the House, but
was not entitled to a vote, or any other privilege; but as the
privileges of a member had been extended on a former occasion to a
delegate from the South-western Territory, he had no doubt they would be
granted on the present.


MONDAY, December 16.

THOMAS HARTLEY, from Pennsylvania, and JOSEPH EGGLESTON, from Virginia,
appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their
seats in the House.


WEDNESDAY, December 18.

_Death of General Washington._

Mr. MARSHALL, in a voice that bespoke the anguish of his mind, and a
countenance expressive of the deepest regret, rose, and delivered
himself as follows:

Mr. Speaker: Information has just been received, that our illustrious
fellow-citizen, the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army, and the
late President of the United States, is no more!

Though this distressing intelligence is not certain, there is too much
reason to believe its truth. After receiving information of this
national calamity, so heavy and so afflicting, the House of
Representatives can be but ill fitted for public business. I move you,
therefore, they adjourn.

The motion was unanimously agreed to; and then the House adjourned till
to-morrow morning, 11 o'clock.


THURSDAY, December 19.

SAMUEL GOODE, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Death of General Washington._

Mr. MARSHALL addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Speaker: The melancholy event which was yesterday announced with
doubt, has been rendered but too certain. Our WASHINGTON is no more! The
Hero, the Sage, and the Patriot of America--the man on whom in times of
danger every eye was turned and all hopes were placed--lives now only in
his own great actions, and in the hearts of an affectionate and
afflicted people.

If, sir, it had even not been usual openly to testify respect for the
memory of those whom Heaven had selected as its instruments for
dispensing good to men, yet such has been the uncommon worth, and such
the extraordinary incidents which have marked the life of him whose loss
we all deplore, that the whole American nation, impelled by the same
feelings, would call with one voice for a public manifestation of that
sorrow which is so deep and so universal.

More than any other individual, and as much as to any one individual was
possible, has he contributed to found this our wide-spreading empire,
and to give to the Western world its independence and its freedom.

Having effected the great object for which he was placed at the head of
our armies, we have seen him converting the sword into the ploughshare,
and voluntarily sinking the soldier in the citizen.

When the debility of our federal system had become manifest, and the
bonds which connected the parts of this vast continent were dissolving,
we have seen him the Chief of those patriots who formed for us a
constitution, which, by preserving the Union, will, I trust,
substantiate and perpetuate those blessings our Revolution had promised
to bestow.

In obedience to the general voice of his country, calling on him to
preside over a great people, we have seen him once more quit the
retirement he loved, and in a season more stormy and tempestuous than
war itself, with calm and wise determination, pursue the true interests
of the nation, and contribute, more than any other could contribute, to
the establishment of that system of policy which will, I trust, yet
preserve our peace, our honor, and our independence.

Having been twice unanimously chosen the Chief Magistrate of a free
people, we see him at a time when his re-election, with the universal
suffrage, could not have been doubted, affording to the world a rare
instance of moderation, by withdrawing from his high station to the
peaceful walks of private life.

However the public confidence may change, and the public affections
fluctuate with respect to others, yet with respect to him they have in
war and in peace, in public and in private life, been as steady as his
own firm mind, and as constant as his own exalted virtues.

Let us then, Mr. Speaker, pay the last tribute of respect and affection
to our departed friend--let the Grand Council of the nation display
those sentiments which the nation feels.

For this purpose I hold in my hand some resolutions, which I will take
the liberty to offer to the House.

Mr. MARSHALL having handed them in at the table, they were read, and
unanimously agreed to by the House, in the words following, to wit:

      The House of Representatives of the United States, having
      received intelligence of the death of their highly valued
      fellow-citizen, GEORGE WASHINGTON, General of the Armies of
      the United States, and sharing the universal grief this
      distressing event must produce, _unanimously resolve_:

      1. That this House will wait on the President of the United
      States, in condolence of this national calamity.

      2. That the Speaker's chair be shrouded with black, and
      that the members and officers of the House wear mourning,
      during the session.

      3. That a joint committee of both Houses be appointed to
      report measures suitable to the occasion, and expressive of
      the profound sorrow with which Congress is penetrated on
      the loss of a citizen, first in war, first in peace, and
      first in the hearts of his countrymen.

      4. That when this House adjourn, it will adjourn until
      Monday next.

_Ordered_, That Mr. MARSHALL and Mr. SMITH be appointed a committee to
wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, to know when and where he
will receive this House for the purpose expressed in the first
resolution.

_Ordered_, That Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. CRAIK, Mr. HENRY LEE, Mr. EGGLESTON,
Mr. SMITH, Mr. STONE, Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. ABIEL FOSTER, Mr. MUHLENBERG,
Mr. VAN CORTLANDT, MR. DWIGHT FOSTER, Mr. FRANKLIN DAVENPORT, Mr.
CLAIBORNE, Mr. MORRIS, Mr. JOHN BROWN, and Mr. TALIAFERRO, be a
committee, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part
of the Senate, for the purpose expressed in the third resolution.

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do acquaint the Senate
therewith.

A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, which,
together with the letter accompanying the same, was read and referred to
the committee last appointed, and is as follows:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      The letter herewith transmitted, will inform you that it
      has pleased Divine Providence to remove from this life our
      excellent fellow-citizen, GEORGE WASHINGTON, by the purity
      of his character, and a long series of services to his
      country, rendered illustrious through the world. It remains
      for an affectionate and grateful people, in whose hearts he
      can never die, to pay suitable honor to his memory.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _Dec. 19, 1799_.


                          "MOUNT VERNON, _Dec. 15, 1799_.

      "SIR: It is with inexpressible grief that I have to
      announce to you the death of the great and good General
      WASHINGTON. He died last evening, between ten and eleven
      o'clock, after a short illness of about twenty hours. His
      disorder was an inflammatory sore throat, which proceeded
      from a cold, of which he made but little complaint on
      Friday. On Saturday morning, about three o'clock, he became
      ill. Doctor Craik attended him in the morning, and Doctor
      Dick, of Alexandria, and Doctor Brown, of Port Tobacco,
      were soon after called in. Every medical assistance was
      offered, but without the desired effect. His last scene
      corresponded with the whole tenor of his life; not a groan,
      nor a complaint, escaped him in extreme distress. With
      perfect resignation, and in full possession of his reason,
      he closed his well spent life.

      "I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient and very
      humble servant,

                          "TOBIAS LEAR.

      "The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."

Mr. MARSHALL, 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 this House in condolence of the national calamity, reported
that the committee had, according to order, performed that service, and
that the PRESIDENT signified to them it would be convenient for him to
receive this House at one o'clock this afternoon, at his own house.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have agreed
to the resolution passed by the House of Representatives for the
appointment of a joint committee of both Houses to report measures
suitable to the occasion, and expressive of the profound sorrow with
which Congress is penetrated on the loss of a citizen, first in war,
first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen; and have
appointed Mr. DAYTON, Mr. BINGHAM, Mr. DEXTER, Mr. GUNN, Mr. LAURANCE,
and Mr. TRACY, a committee on their part.

The SPEAKER, attended by the House, then withdraw to the house of the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, when Mr. SPEAKER addressed the PRESIDENT
as follows:

      SIR: The House of Representatives, penetrated with a sense
      of the irreparable loss sustained by the nation in the
      death of that great and good man, the illustrious and
      beloved WASHINGTON, wait on you, sir, to express their
      condolence on this melancholy and distressing event.

To which the PRESIDENT replied as follows:

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

      I receive, with great respect and affection, the condolence
      of the House of Representatives, on the melancholy and
      affecting event, in the death of the most illustrious and
      beloved personage which this country ever produced. I
      sympathize with you, with the nation, and with good men
      through the world, in this irreparable loss sustained by us
      all.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _Dec. 19, 1799_.


MONDAY, December 23.

THOMAS T. DAVIS, from Kentucky; ROBERT WILLIAMS, from North Carolina;
and JOHN DENNIS, from Maryland; appeared, produced their credentials,
were qualified, and took their seats in the House.

_Respect to the Memory of General Washington._

Mr. MARSHALL, from the joint committee appointed to report what
testimony of respect ought to be paid to the memory of the man first in
war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, made a
report in part, which he delivered in at the table, where it was twice
read, and unanimously agreed to, in the words following, to wit:

      _Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That a
      marble monument be erected by the United States, in the
      capitol, in the city of Washington, and that the family of
      General WASHINGTON be requested to permit his body to be
      deposited under it; and that the monument be so designed as
      to commemorate the great events of his military and
      political life.

      _And be it further resolved_, That there be a funeral
      procession from Congress Hall to the German Lutheran
      Church, in honor of the memory of General GEORGE
      WASHINGTON, on Thursday, the 26th instant, and that an
      oration be prepared at the request of Congress, to be
      delivered before both Houses on that day, and that the
      President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of
      Representatives be desired to request one of the members of
      Congress to prepare and deliver the same.

      _And be it further resolved_, That it be recommended to the
      people of the United States to wear crape on the left arm,
      as mourning for thirty days.

      _And be it further resolved_, That the President of the
      United States be requested to direct a copy of these
      resolutions to be transmitted to Mrs. WASHINGTON, assuring
      her of the profound respect Congress will ever bear to her
      person and character; of their condolence on the late
      afflicting dispensation of Providence; and entreating her
      assent to the interment of the remains of General GEORGE
      WASHINGTON, in the manner expressed in the first
      resolution.

      _And be it further resolved_, That the President of the
      United States be requested to issue a proclamation,
      notifying to the people throughout the United States the
      recommendation contained in the third resolution.

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolutions to
the Senate, and desire their concurrence.

Previous to the question being put upon the first resolution, Mr. H. LEE
of Virginia, rose, and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Speaker: In executing the task assigned to the committee, it will be
observed much remains to be done; so far as they have gone, and as far
as they may go, one hope is cherished, that whatever is done, will be
unanimously adopted.

This will be most pleasing to our constituents, and most honorable to
the character we all honor. Out of a wish to execute in the best manner
the direction of the House, a difference of opinion will naturally
prevail. This difference of opinion, however commendable, upon
ascertaining the mode of public mourning, ought to be suppressed when we
come to act; for unanimity then is, as I before stated, most to be
wished for, whether the feelings of our constituents, or our intentions,
on the celebrity which all desire to give to the high occasion, govern.

A message was received from the Senate, announcing their concurrence in
the report of the joint committee made this day; and then the House
adjourned till to-morrow morning.


TUESDAY, December 24.

_Respect to the Memory of General Washington._

The SPEAKER informed the House that, conformably to the resolution of
Congress, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives had requested Major General HENRY LEE, one of the
Representatives from the State of Virginia, to prepare and deliver a
funeral oration before both Houses, on Thursday, the twenty-sixth
instant, in honor of the memory of GEORGE WASHINGTON, late General of
the Armies of the United States; and that Mr. LEE had been pleased to
accept of the appointment.

And, on motion, the House adjourned.


THURSDAY, December 26.

This being the day appointed by the resolution of Congress for the
funeral procession in honor of the memory of GEORGE WASHINGTON, late
General of the Armies of the United States, the House proceeded to the
German Lutheran Church, where they attended the funeral oration,
prepared and delivered on the occasion by Major General LEE, one of the
members of this House for the State of Virginia.

The House, having returned, adjourned until to-morrow morning.


FRIDAY, December 27.

JOHN FOWLER, from Kentucky, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Respect to the Memory of General Washington._

On a motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following
resolution, to wit:

      "The House of Representatives of the United States, highly
      gratified with the manner in which Mr. LEE has performed
      the service assigned to him under the resolution desiring
      the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of
      Representatives to request one of the members of Congress
      to prepare and deliver a funeral oration on the death of
      GEORGE WASHINGTON; and desirous of communicating to their
      fellow-citizens, through the medium of the press those
      sentiments of respect for the character, of gratitude for
      the services, and of grief for the death of that
      illustrious personage, which, felt by all, have on this
      melancholy occasion been so well expressed:

      "_Resolved_, That the Speaker present the thanks of this
      House to Mr. LEE, for the oration delivered by him to both
      Houses of Congress on Thursday, the twenty-sixth instant;
      and request that he will permit a copy thereof to be taken
      for publication:"

The question was taken that the House do agree to the same, and
unanimously resolved in the affirmative.


MONDAY, December 30.

_Respect to the Memory of General Washington._

The SPEAKER informed the House that, in pursuance of the resolution of
Friday last, he had addressed to Major General HENRY LEE, one of the
members for the State of Virginia, the following letter:

                          "PHILADELPHIA, _Dec. 27, 1799_.

      "DEAR SIR: The enclosed resolutions, which unanimously
      passed the House of Representatives this day, will make
      known to you how highly they have been gratified with the
      manner in which you have performed the service assigned to
      you, in preparing and delivering a funeral oration on the
      death of General WASHINGTON. That our constituents may
      participate in the gratification we have received, from
      your having so well expressed those sentiments of respect
      for the character, of gratitude for the services, and of
      grief for the death of that illustrious personage, I
      flatter myself you will not hesitate to comply with the
      request of the House, by furnishing a copy of your oration,
      to be taken for publication.

      "Allow me, while performing this pleasing task of official
      duty in communicating an act of the Representatives of the
      people, so just to you and so honorable to themselves, to
      embrace the opportunity to declare that I am, personally,
      with great esteem and sincere regard, dear sir, your friend
      and obedient servant,

                          "THEODORE SEDGWICK.

      "The Hon. Maj. Gen. LEE."

To which Mr. LEE had replied as follows:

      "FRANKLIN COURT, _Dec. 28, 1799_.

      "DEAR SIR: I owe to the goodness of the House of
      Representatives the honor which their resolutions confer on
      my humble efforts to execute their wish.

      "I can never disobey their will, and therefore will furnish
      a copy of the oration delivered on the late afflicting
      occasion, much as I had flattered myself with a different
      disposition of it.

      "Sincerely reciprocating the personal considerations with
      which you honor me, I am, very respectfully, sir, your
      friend and obedient servant,

                          "HENRY LEE.

      "The SPEAKER _of the House of Reps_."

Mr. MARSHALL, from the joint committee appointed to consider and report
what measures ought to be adopted in honor of the memory of General
WASHINGTON, made another report in part, which was unanimously agreed to
by the House, in the words following, to wit:

      _Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States in Congress assembled_, That it be
      recommended to the people of the United States to assemble
      on the twenty-second day of February next, in such numbers
      and manner as may be convenient, publicly to testify their
      grief for the death of General GEORGE WASHINGTON, by
      suitable eulogies, orations, and discourses, or by public
      prayers.

      _And be it further resolved_, That the President of the
      United States be requested to recommend the same, by a
      proclamation for that purpose.

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolutions to
the Senate, and desire their concurrence.


THURSDAY, January 2, 1800.

RICHARD DOBBS SPAIGHT, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his
credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

_Petition of Free Blacks._

Mr. WALN presented a petition of Absalom Jones and others, free men of
color, of the city and county of Philadelphia, praying for a revision of
the laws of the United States relative to the slave trade; of the act
relative to fugitives from justice; and for the adoption of such
measures as shall in due course emancipate the whole of their brethren
from their present situation; which he moved to have referred to the
committee appointed to inquire whether any and what alterations ought to
be made in the existing law prohibiting the slave trade from the United
States to any foreign place or country.

The petitioners, after mentioning their sense of the bounties of
Providence in their freedom, and the happiness they felt under such a
form of Government, represent that they cannot but be impressed with the
hardships under which numbers of their color labored, who they
conceived equal objects of representation and attention with themselves
or others under the constitution. That the solemn compact, the
constitution, was violated by the trade of kidnapping, carried on by the
people of some of the Southern States on the shores of Maryland and
Delaware, by which numbers were hurried into holes and cellars, torn
from their families and transported to Georgia, and there inhumanly
exposed to sale, which was degrading to the dignified nature of man.
That by these and other measures injurious to the human species, there
were 700,000 blacks now in slavery in these States. They stated their
application to Congress to be, not for the immediate emancipation of the
whole, knowing that their degraded state and want of education would
render that measure improper, but they ask an amelioration of their hard
situation. They prayed that the act called the fugitive bill, which was
very severe on that race of people, might be considered; also that the
African slave trade might be put a stop to.

Mr. WALN moved its reference to the committee appointed to prohibit
carrying on the slave trade to any foreign place or country.

Mr. RUTLEDGE thought any reference at all very improper; he hoped it
would be laid on the table, and with a view never to be called up
hereafter. Petitions of this sort had repeatedly come before the House,
only with the difference of transfer of hands. When the Congress sat at
New York, they spent much time and attention on the subject, but no
sooner had it been decided that nothing could be done, than the same
scenes were acted over again by repeatedly petitioning. Those gentlemen
who used to come forward, to be sure, had not avowedly come forward
again, but had now put it into the hands of the black _gentlemen_. They
now tell the House these people are in slavery--I thank God they are! if
they were not, dreadful would be the consequences. They say they are not
represented. To be sure a great number of them are not. Farther, they
say they are sent to the Southern States. Who can prevent that? Persons
possessing slaves have a right to send them there if they choose. They
tell you that they are brought from Africa. This matter is in a train to
be prevented, the subject being now in the hands of a committee. Already
had too much of this new-fangled French philosophy of liberty and
equality found its way and was too apparent among these _gentlemen_ in
the Southern States, by which nothing would do but their liberty. This
appeared to be the intention of the petition, but he supposed the people
of the Eastern States had felt as much in having them among them as
those of the Southern States in losing them, and therefore he believed
gentlemen from those parts would vote with them. However, he considered
this subject very improper and unconstitutional to discuss, and, from
the ill effects it might produce, should say no more.

Mr. WALN thought the gentleman mistaken as to the nature of the
petition; it related but two grievances: one was the operation of the
fugitive act, by which free men were carried and sold into slavery, and
the other was the slave trade. He did not wish to enter into general
principles, because he conceived it as improper as any gentleman, but he
could see no good reason why the petition might not be committed; every
petition presented to the House ought to receive that attention, and a
rejection of the present without examination could have no good effect.

Mr. SMILIE was much surprised at the opposition of the gentleman from
South Carolina to the reference. To be sure a great part of what these
people asked, as far as he was acquainted with it, was out of their
power to grant, but there was much of the petition which was within the
power of the House. So far as they had power, he considered it the duty
of the House to attend and grant relief. He could wish to drop some
ideas on the situation of those people, but felt a contrary impulse from
motives of prudence. However, he must consider them as a part of the
human species, equally capable of suffering and enjoying with others,
and equally objects of attention, and therefore they had a claim to be
heard.

Mr. OTIS hoped the petition would not be committed; he had never seen a
petition presented under a more dangerous and unpleasant aspect. It
appeared to be subscribed by a number of individuals who were incapable
of writing their names, or of reading the petition, and, _a fortiori_,
of digesting the principles of it. It therefore was a petition of
certain men made out by other men, who ought to have come forward
themselves, but had forborne. To encourage a measure of the kind would
have an irritating tendency, and must be mischievous to America very
soon. It would teach them the art of assembling together, debating, and
the like, and would soon, if encouraged, extend from one end of the
Union to the other. A great part of the petition was improper, and the
other part entirely unnecessary. No particular object or evils were
pointed out in the fugitive law, but the truth was, they wanted a repeal
of the law. Although, he thanked God he had no slaves, nor ever wished
to possess any, yet he thought the subject ought not to be meddled with
by the General Government, and if any grievances existed, they were
properly and only objects of legislation in the several States. It was
the duty, and he thought the interest of the States, while they were
kept in servitude, to ameliorate their situation as much as consisted
with security. He thought those who did not possess that species of
property had better leave the regulation of it to those who were cursed
with it. However, it was unjust to intermeddle with it to the injury of
the possessors.

Mr. H. LEE observed that gentlemen were sent to that House to preserve
the rights of the people and the rights of property. That property
which the people of the Southern States possess consisted of slaves, and
therefore Congress had no authority but to protect it, and not take
measures to deprive the citizens of it. He said he held himself not
second to any gentleman in a genuine attachment to the rights of
humanity, but he could not believe that great ends would be answered by
the reference of the petition, but much evil might accrue. It contained
sentiments which he thought it would be highly improper so far to
encourage. One object prayed for in this petition was now in the hands
of a committee; let that committee report respecting the Guinea trade,
let it be entirely obliterated; to that he would agree with all his
heart, but he hoped the House would never intermeddle with the property
of any of the citizens. Instead of voting with the worthy member who
wished it to lie on the table, he would have it returned to the
gentleman who presented it, as the only effectual means of checking an
injurious practice.

Mr. RUTLEDGE, in addition to his former arguments, observed, that so
improper was it to consider this subject that some of the States would
never have adopted the federal form of Government if it had not been
secured to them that Congress would never legislate on the subject of
slavery. Inasmuch, therefore, as it might rouse the jealousy and fears
of those States, the least attention paid to it might do mischief.

Mr. THATCHER said that gentlemen generally set out wrong, on this
subject, and leave off about half right; they debated till they were
almost tired, and then the petition was not to be committed. If Congress
had not power to legislate on the African trade, then why did they say
it was with a committee? If they had power, where was the impropriety of
referring, at least that part which could be considered? Would any
gentleman say that it was policy not to legislate about 700,000 enemies
in the very body of the United States? While they were slaves they were
enemies. He declared a greater evil than the very principle could not
exist; it was a cancer of immense magnitude, that would some time
destroy the body politic, except a proper legislation should prevent the
evil. It must come before the House sooner or later. Then why postpone
it? It was true the Eastern States were now suffering from the streams
which issued from this great and dangerous fountain, but the evil ought
to be stopped, ere it become too strong.

Mr. BROWN, of Rhode Island, said he was in hopes that every member
belonging to the Northern States would have seen by this time the
impropriety of encouraging slaves to come from the Southern States to
reside as vagabonds and thieves among them, and have been tired of the
bad policy. No subject surely was so likely to cause a division of the
States as that respecting slaves. He did not hold a slave in the world,
he said, but he was as much for supporting the rights and property of
those who did, as though he was a slave owner. He considered this as
much personal property as a farm or a ship, which was incontestably so.
He went into a view of the federal compact, to argue the impropriety of
legislating on the subject. This petition, he said, did not come from
the blacks, but from a combination of people who had troubled Congress
for many years past, and he feared never would cease. He did not fear
the power of the 700,000 enemies that the gentleman had pointed out,
since there were five millions to withstand them: they could at any time
subdue them. He begged that the gentleman, who put the petition on the
table, might be desired to take it back again. He was sorry to see the
commitment supported by two such worthy members of the House, both good
Federalists. [A laugh.]

Mr. WALN contended, that at least the House had the power of legislating
on the state of free blacks as well as other people, and on the slave
trade, much of which was still carrying on from Rhode Island, Boston and
Pennsylvania. This ought to be looked into. He denied that any idea had
ever entered his mind on presenting the petition either to debate on the
subject, or to will an emancipation of the slaves. Gentlemen from the
Southern States appeared to lament there were so many among them, but
their conduct was very contrary to their declaration.

Mr. HILL thought if any evil existed under any law now in force, a
committee ought to be appointed, to examine into and correct it: but he
hoped the petition would not be committed. It was to be lamented that
this kind of property did exist; but it did exist, and was sanctioned by
the constitution. That being the case, the House ought to set their
faces against any innovations on it, either directly or indirectly.

Mr. DENNIS rose, he said, principally because he conceived the petition
implicated the justice of the States of Maryland and Delaware,
respecting the abominable practice of kidnapping. In justice to the
State he represented, he must say that none of this evil was
attributable to that State, because they had enacted extremely penal
laws to stop it. He wished the petition to lie on the table, because the
objects of it appeared to be extremely multifarious, and he believed but
few members knew its contents, from the different opinions they had
advanced. He wished them to have an opportunity of examining it.

Mr. RANDOLPH hoped that the conduct of the House would be so decided as
to deter the petitioners, or any persons acting for them, from ever
presenting one of a similar nature hereafter. The effects must be
extremely injurious. He did wish that the conduct of the House would
have been so indignant as to have passed it over without discussion. He
should not, therefore, say any thing that would tend to encourage that
discussion. The constitution had put it out of the power of the House to
do any thing in it, and therefore he hoped the motion for a reference
would be lost by a decided majority, and this be the last time the
business of the House would be entered upon, and the interest and
feelings of the Southern States be put in jeopardy, by similar
applications.

Mr. CHRISTIE said the gentleman was mistaken, if he thought it would be
the last time, for a certain society had thought it their duty to
present petitions of this nature to Congress every year since he was
acquainted with it; but he hoped this, which came from that source, but
through other hands, would have the fate of all the rest, and go under
the table instead of upon it. As to the fugitive law, he would wish it
to be taken up, and if no other member moved it, he should; but not for
the purpose of repeal or weakening, but to make it stronger. There was
now a fine laid upon any person who should harbor a black, knowing him
or her to be a slave; he wished the provision should be that the persons
harboring should know that he or she was not a slave. He mentioned the
great desire of his State to prevent kidnapping, for which their laws
were very severe.

Mr. HARPER had hoped that the House so well understood this subject, as
to the people who instigated the petitioners to come forward, who well
knew that nothing could be done by Congress, as to decide on it
instantly. This was the act of a religious body of people whose
fanaticism leads them to think it a bounden duty to come to the House
every year, though they now come in a different name. By this measure
they had discharged their duty; all that now remained was for the House
to discharge theirs. He hoped, from the present time, they should merely
let the petition be read and pass it over in silence--for he expected
that society would continue presenting petitions. The obvious tendency
of agitating this question would only be to create discontent in a class
of people whom it was out of the power of the Legislature to change the
situation of. He called upon gentlemen to say whether a temper of revolt
was not more perceptible in that quarter? It was; and what was the cause
of it but that they were not let alone by those people; but if others
would disturb them, he hoped at least that House would cease to do it.

Mr. DANA said if the petition before the House contained nothing but a
farago of the French metaphysics of liberty and equality, he should
think that it was likely to produce some of the dreadful scenes of St.
Domingo. Or if he believed it was only the effects of a religious
fanaticism in a set of men who thought they were doing their duty,
though he thought the subject quite out of the power of Congress, he
might be disposed to think it quite wrong. But when he perceived a
petition, addressed in language which was very decent, and which
expressly declared that the petitioners did not wish the House to do
what was inconsistent with the constitution, but only asked an
amelioration of the severities under which people of their color
labored, he thought it ought to be received and committed. He did not
think the gentleman who presented it ought to withdraw it, nor was he
the least culpable, but executed a duty he conceived him bound to.

Mr. JONES said the petition threw so much aspersion upon the State he
represented (Georgia) that he must think it his duty to rise. Why was
that State to be selected out from all others? However, he should follow
the petition in its parts, in order to show that the petitioners
actually had asked what it was not in the power of the House to
legislate upon--emancipation. It was said to merely affect the slave
trade.

First, the petitioners contemplated that those people (the slaves) ought
to be represented, "with _us_ and the rest of the citizens of the United
States." Then they speak of the Federal compact, in which they consider
those people as interested in common with others, under these words:
"we, the people of the United States of America," &c. I would ask
gentlemen whether, with all their philanthropy, they would wish to see
those people sitting by their sides deliberating in the councils of the
nation? He presumed not. They go on farther and say, "We do not ask for
the immediate emancipation of all, but we ask you to prepare the way for
the oppressed to go free, that every yoke might be broken, thus keeping
up the principle to do unto others as you would they should do unto
you." The words need only be read to convince every man what is the
tendency of their request. The gentleman farther says that 700,000 men
are in bondage. I ask him how he would remedy this evil as he calls it?
but I do not think it is any evil; would he have these people turned out
in the United States to ravage, murder, and commit every species of
crime? I believe it might have been happy for the United States if these
people had never been introduced amongst us, but I do believe that they
have been immensely benefited by coming amongst us. It was the British
Government that transmitted them down to us when in a colonized state;
but being here, and being the property of individuals, after obtaining
our common liberty, and forming our Federal compact, property and safety
were guaranteed to every individual and State in the confederation. How
then can this House meddle with that part of our property? The General
Government has no power over it. With respect to that part of the
petition which said that these people were crowded into cellars and
transported to Georgia, Mr. J. informed the House that the importation
to that State by sea had been prohibited; none had come there by sea for
many years, and offenders against that law were fined £100 sterling for
each individual thus introduced. He hoped the petition would be treated
with the contempt it merited, and thrown under the table.

Mr. RUTLEDGE rose to move that the question might be decided by _yeas_
and _nays_. It was a practice he generally was against, and scarcely
ever moved, but he considered this of importance sufficient to demand
it. It was a question in which the interests of a great number of people
in this country were involved. He had no doubt it would be lost by a
very great majority, and he thought it would have a good effect to be
recorded by how vast a majority it would be lost. He thought it would be
some consolation to his constituents, when he returned home, to say how
few of the House of Representatives were the supporters of this
dangerous petition.

Mr. WALN said if he had known that this petition would have caused so
much alarm, he certainly should have desired the petitioners not to
present it; but if they had still thought it necessary and been desirous
of it, he should, as he then thought it within the power of legislation,
and still thought so, have presented it. He thought it his duty,
whenever any individual conceived himself injured by a law, to receive
his petition, and he thought himself in no wise implicated in the
manner, form, or subject of the petition, or answerable for it as
containing his opinions. If it should be supposed that the assertions in
the petition were unfounded, or bore too hard on a certain State, the
only way to ascertain that fact was by referring to a committee, that
the necessary inquiries might be reported. He again declared his
disapprobation at this subject undergoing any discussion, nor would it
have taken place had not the gentleman from South Carolina commenced it.

Mr. PLATT conceived that every thing which was brought before that House
ought to be committed, unless there was manifest indecency in the
language, or it should appear that the relief prayed for could not be
granted consistently with the power of the House. In his opinion, except
one of these two causes prevented, it unquestionably ought to be thus
disposed of. As for indecency of expression, he could perceive none,
either in the petition, or in the arguments of the gentlemen who
advocated its reference. A third reason indeed might be mentioned, which
was, that the persons whose names were signed did not give consent to
the petition and therefore it was not their act. Neither of these
reasons was proved to have existed.

Although, agreeably to the constitution, Congress could not make any
laws to prevent the emigration or importation of any persons whom the
several States should, at the adoption thereof think proper to admit,
yet Congress could, and had made laws relative to fugitives from justice
and previous to the year 1800. It was this law they prayed the
amelioration of, and that the power of persons over their slaves might
be limited, and that the law might be so amended as to prevent its
violation. It was for that, and not for the general abolition of slavery
they prayed, and surely they ought to be heard; their prayer ought to be
committed for that purpose.

He disclaimed the least desire, but an abhorrence, of any principle that
would rob persons of their property, but at the same time he was not
such a dupe to _words_ as to be of the opinion held up by a gentleman,
that because the French had used the words "reason" and "philosophy" he
should discard them, and with them humanity.

Mr. THATCHER thought that to make use of the incapacity of these people
to read or write, as an argument against committing their petition, must
arise out of prejudice in his colleague against the general object, or
he surely never would have resorted to such pitiful, and he might say,
mean, virulent remarks. [Mr. T. was here called to order.] This was
certainly a "new-fangled doctrine." But the reason why they could not
write was because of the degraded state of their minds for want of
education; many of them, perhaps, in their youth were in slavery.

The gentleman from Georgia had objected to the reference because the
petition contained a system of facts which _he said_ was not true? He
(Mr. T.) believed they were true, and thus the dispute was in issue. How
was this to be ascertained but by inquiry? If the State of Georgia
should prove themselves innocent of that black stain, it would be to
their honor. But no, said the gentlemen, "We will not have it examined
into, because it will make us out to be as _black_ as the petitioners
themselves?"

Mr. EDMOND observed that the gentleman from South Carolina had called
for the yeas and nays for a particular purpose, to wit, that it should
be seen how few voted for this intermeddling with the property of the
people in the Southern States. Mr. E. said he should vote for the
reference, and as that opinion would be attached to his conduct, his
reasons ought to accompany his vote. He should be as far from wishing to
affect the property of the citizens as any gentleman, much less should
he wish to affect the constitution. This appeared to him to be a very
respectful petition; it mattered not whether the people were black or
white; the petition only was to be regarded, and not the color of the
persons, who, representing their grievances, asked for such a relief as
the constitution could afford them. Surely then, every measure ought to
be adopted to alleviate their sufferings. Was it consistent that the
House, instead of a reasonable and patient attention, should come
forward and treat this complaint with an inattention which passion only
could dictate? Was contempt the way to recommend attachment to the
Government? This ferment and scorn could not be necessary, but he was
sure it was highly improper and inconsistent.

Mr. GALLATIN said that in his opinion there were many parts of the
petition exceptionable, but not being so much acquainted with it as
might be necessary to form a decision, he could not say whether or not
it was in the power of the House to legislate on it. However, seeing
this much in the situation with other petitions, he felt disposed, and
should vote for its reference. If it should appear improper for Congress
to legislate on it, then the committee would so report. He said he was
not satisfied that there was no grievance to which the House could apply
a remedy; he thought there was such a part. He remembered a petition
from Delaware once on one of the complaints, that of kidnapping free
negroes; therefore, he conceived it was truth, and could be no insult to
the States of Delaware and Maryland to mention it. If so, surely an
effectual remedy ought to be applied. In the former State he believed
they had made the punishment death, and yet the evil was not prevented,
if the complaints of the petitioners were true.

Mr. WALN then withdrew his former motion, and moved "that so much of the
petition as related to the slave trade carried on from any part of the
United States to any foreign place or country; and so much of the said
petition as respected fugitives from justice, or escaped from their
masters, be referred to the committee appointed on the 12th day of
December last on the subject of the slave trade."

Mr. RUTLEDGE appealed to the Chair to know whether the motion was in
order.

Mr. SPEAKER said, perhaps, that was the only deliberative body in the
world where a motion, having been made, seconded, and debated, could be
withdrawn by either the mover or seconder. But it had been a practice in
that House so to do, and there was no rule against it. The motion was
therefore perfectly agreeable to order.

Mr. RUTLEDGE then moved an adjournment, which was carried--yeas 47, nays
35.


FRIDAY, January 3.

BENJAMIN HUGER, from South Carolina, appeared, was qualified, and took
his seat.

_Petition of Free Blacks._

The House resumed the unfinished business of yesterday, on the
resolution for referring certain parts of the petition of Absalom Jones
and others, when

Mr. RUTLEDGE rose to explain his reasons for moving the adjournment
yesterday, as not having arisen from a desire of protracting the debate,
but because he conceived the Chair misunderstood him on the point of
order. When he submitted the question of order to the Chair, it appeared
from the decision to be the Speaker's opinion that the question was,
whether a member had a right to withdraw a motion in that situation or
not. He knew that right to exist, but he doubted of the competency of
the House to refer parts of a petition, and not the whole. In his
opinion it ought not to be referred, or, if so, the whole ought to be
referred generally. He mentioned a petition which was last session
presented from Northampton County, praying the repeal of the alien and
sedition laws, but in their general zeal in the pursuance of those
objects severally, other laws were found fault with, particularly those
relating to measures of defence. These were thought to be improper for a
reference; on which a motion was made to refer a part, but it was then
thought the petition could not be divided. He submitted to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania a very easy mode of acquiring the object, which was by
withdrawing the petition and advising the petitioners to present one
conformable to the decision, and within the constitutional power of the
House. Gentlemen were mistaken in saying that petitions of this kind
came annually. The session before last the subject was referred to a
committee, who made a suitable report upon it, and in order to prevent
the continual debate, it was resolved to be a proper object of Judicial,
and not of Legislative cognizance. This brought the matter to such an
understanding that he hoped he would have heard no more of it. It
appeared to have had the good effect of preventing any application
during the sitting of last session.

The SPEAKER said the question of order, as now explained by the member
from South Carolina, was not understood by the Chair. From all the
examination and the fruits of inquiry which the Chair had since
acquired, it appeared not to be unusual to refer parts of a subject, for
parts of the PRESIDENT'S Speech had been referred; also, parts of
petitions had frequently been referred; on which account the opinion of
the Chair at present, unless an appeal should be made to the House, was,
that the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was perfectly in
order.

Mr. WALN said it would have been very agreeable to him that the question
should have been taken on the motion first made to the House; but, on
hearing the warmth with which it was contested, and willing to remove
the jealousy of several gentlemen in the House, he thought it best to
alter the motion to their wishes.

It had been suggested that to withdraw the petition for its
modification, would be an easy way to acquire the object. He thought it
entirely unnecessary to withdraw it in this stage of business. Although
he could have wished the words objected to had never been inserted, yet
he was not prepared to say that the petitioners had no right to use
them. It appeared that these people's sentiments accorded with those of
the gentlemen who opposed the reference. They wished to obtain a removal
of this great evil when proper: those gentlemen called it an evil which
they could wish to get rid of, but they think it cannot be done. Mr. W.
said he should not have objected to a resolution importing that it would
be improper to legislate on the subject of slavery, but so far as
relates to the bad traffic, and the practice of kidnapping, they ought
to be examined by a committee. On these accounts he was not authorized,
nor was he inclined to withdraw the petition.

He was in hopes the gentleman from South Carolina would not have
desisted from his motion for calling the yeas and nays; that gentleman
wished the House to show the world that this petition was so irritating
and alarming as to merit universal contempt and abhorrence. He believed
this gentleman was mistaken as to the small number he supposed would
vote for its commitment, and therefore wished he would renew the motion
on the question as modified.

Mr. GOODE then observed that as a public discussion had taken place upon
this subject--one from which he thought Congress precluded by the
constitution, and one which materially affected the interest and perhaps
the safety of a great portion of the United States, and particularly of
his constituents, he thought it his duty not only to give his negative
in the usual manner, but to call for the pointed disapprobation of the
House, and proposed to amend the resolution by adding the following
words:

      "And that the parts of the said petition which invite
      Congress to legislate upon subjects from which the General
      Government is precluded by the constitution, have a
      tendency to create disquiet and jealousy, and ought
      therefore to receive the pointed disapprobation of this
      House."

Mr. THATCHER said it was the first time that he had ever known any
petition or part of a petition receive the "pointed disapprobation of
the House" by a resolution, even though the object of it was not within
the power of the House. Several petitions had been received upon which
the House had no power. He referred to the petition of John Churchman,
in December 1791, praying the patronage of Government to facilitate his
discovery of the longitude, by enabling him to undertake a voyage to
Baffin's Bay. It was reported that great inconvenience operated to
prevent the grant prayed for, and no money was allowed, yet no member
moved a censure upon the petitioner. Was it a desirable object to do
away a great evil? It was professed to be the wish of several gentlemen
to eradicate it. No gentleman in the House but appeared desirous of
embracing it with all his heart. These people only wished the evil
destroyed, but did not point out the form. He was willing, for the sake
of argument, to admit that slavery did exist and was sanctioned by the
laws and constitution of the United States; he did not believe the fact,
but as some other gentlemen did, he would admit it for the present.
Surely it would be desirable that this great evil should be destroyed,
if it could be done without injury, nay, with advantage, to the
possessors. Did the petition go any farther than this? It did not. The
second person in the Government of the United States had devised a means
to procure this object, as also had a certain learned professor. If it
was therefore the desire, as avowed, of those gentlemen, and an
equitable means had been devised to acquire it, would the reference of a
petition which made that request be improper, or would it be impolitic
in gentlemen to examine these plans, and if eligible bring about their
execution? Certainly not. Even if a certain sum of money was wanting,
he did not believe the House would refuse to appropriate it. Who would
withhold a few dollars from his purse to facilitate it? Then, while such
are the propositions, a petition in behalf of its accomplishment ought
to be heard; if it be not, it must fix a national indignity and stigma
which ages of good actions could never wipe away.

Mr. DANA was not of the opinion of a number of gentlemen, that the House
ought to express its indignation against these petitions. The
indignation of that House ought to be limited to certain objects; it
might be expressed against an offending nation, but he much doubted
whether it became it to express that high sensation against any
individuals. He thought no circumstance could occur which called for
such condescension, and therefore he could not approve of words so
strongly expressed upon an occasion comparatively so trivial. If the
gentleman from Virginia would so convey his ideas as to express the
impropriety of those subjects for the consideration of this House, he
was willing to agree with him.

Mr. RUTLEDGE thought it a little extraordinary that when gentlemen from
some parts of the Union were positively assured that very serious, nay,
dreadful effects, must be the inevitable consequence of their discussion
on this subject, they still would persist. He used strong words, he
said, because no others would be appropriate. Gentlemen recommended the
subject to be calmly argued. Would gentlemen feel calm if measures were
taken to destroy most of their property? Would calmness be consistent if
entering wedges were prepared to ruin the property of whole estates? If
ever it was justifiable to be warm on any subject in the House, it
surely was on an occasion like the present, when imminent danger was in
view. Yes, we deem this as an entering wedge to an inevitable loss of
our property, if persisted in. It appeared by the gentleman's arguments
that he had just been reading the opinions of his brother philosopher,
Brissot.

Three emissaries from St. Domingo appeared in the hall of the
Convention, demanding the emancipation of their species from slavery.
The Convention were told it would operate as an entering wedge that
would go to the destruction of property, and the loss of one of the
finest islands in the world; that it would be murderous in the extreme;
that it would open scenes which had never been practised since the
destruction of Carthage; that a whole rich country would be buried in
blood; that thousands would instantly be reduced to abject penury; that
the first towns in that fine island would be reduced to a heap of ashes.
But those gentlemen said no, it cannot be, all our desires originate in
philanthropy--we wish to do good! But, sir, we have lived to see these
dreadful scenes. These horrid effects have succeeded what was conceived
once to be trifling. Most important consequences may be the result,
although gentlemen little apprehend it. But we know the situation of
things there, although they do not, and knowing we deprecate it. There
have been emissaries amongst us in the Southern States; they have begun
their war upon us; an actual organization has commenced; we have had
them meeting in their club rooms, and debating on that subject, and
determinations have been made. It might be wrong in me to mention these
things, because many of those people can read and write, and will be
informed of what I am now saying, which they think I did not know, but
knowing, I am determined to make use of.

Sir, I do believe that persons have been sent from France to feel the
pulse of this country, to know whether these are the proper engines to
make use of: these people have been talked to; they have been tampered
with, and this is going on. They now will see that the argument has been
agitated in the Legislature; that the subject of emancipation has been
discussed. Is not this extremely wrong, when gentlemen are told how much
it puts our property at hazard. Although these people are unable to do
any harm, yet the work will be done by gentlemen in this House, _they_
must be answerable for the mischief.

Before I had the honor of a seat in this House, one question which was
agitated by the people was, how do the General Legislature regard this
species of property? I said, our brethren in the Northern States are
willing to leave this business entirely to us who possess it--they will
not intermeddle. I did hope that they never would take the lead in any
arguments of this dangerous tendency. But, as gentlemen have gone into
this business, I find I am compelled to use arguments which otherwise
ought not to be mentioned.

I recollect that gentlemen in France used arguments like the gentleman
from Massachusetts: "We can indemnify these proprietors." But how did
they do it, or how can it be done?--Not at all. Farther, we were told
these things would take place, we need not be alarmed; it was
inevitable; that it was reasonable and unavoidable. Sir, it never will
take place. There is one alternative which will save us from it, but
that alternative I deprecate very much; that is, that we are able to
take care of ourselves, and if driven to it, we will take care of
ourselves.

Mr. JONES had hoped that the decision of Congress when sitting at New
York would have put a final stop to any future applications, and the
councils of the United States would have been troubled no farther with
them. It was justly and wisely proved that it was a difficulty unfit for
Congress to attempt, on account of the extremely different local
circumstances and species of property possessed by the Northern and
Southern members, who were all met in one convention. However, he must
do justice to the candor of some gentlemen from the North, who had
vindicated their right to this property. Mr. J. did not think there was
any more probability of discovering an eligible and just mode of
acquiring the object of _emancipation_, than there was in the case
referred by the gentleman to Mr. Churchman's discovery of _longitude_.
All researches into these attempts were illusory, and both alike
impracticable at this time, if ever they would be. However, he was
certain that the honorable gentleman's manner of treating the subject
would give rise to a just jealousy in those parts of the United States
whose property consisted only in slaves. As to the State he represented,
as he before said, a very heavy penalty was the fine on each slave
imported, and killing, maiming, or ill-treating them was punished
severely by the whites. He could not think but the arguments of some
gentlemen must originate from improper motives.

Mr. EDMOND could not conceive any danger from committing this petition,
whatever alarms some gentlemen had apprehended. But as gentlemen
apprehended so much danger from committing certain parts of the
petition, he would be willing to quiet these alarms, and do every thing
reasonable by expressing an idea that Congress would not legislate upon
what belonged not to them. The amendment at first proposed, he professed
himself much opposed to, upon the ground that the House were about to
express a pointed disapprobation towards the petitioners, which he
conceived wrong, because no censure could be due where a petition was
respectfully addressed. But as now modified he had no objection to adopt
the amendment; not that he conceived it important, but because it tended
to quiet the minds of some gentlemen in the House.

Mr. WALN again said, that it was not his intention to advocate the
emancipation of slaves, but only to ameliorate their state. He therefore
would cheerfully consent to the amendment as amended.

Consent being given by the mover to incorporate the amendment with the
original resolution, it was now all before the House in the form of one
resolution.

Mr. THATCHER said, as an abstract proposition, he should have no
objection; he thought the House ought to give no countenance to any
thing that it could not legislate on by the constitution; but as he did
not believe the petition contained any such proposition, he must adhere
to his former sentiments, and could not consent to the incorporation of
the words. As amended, he disliked it much less than before, but he did
not like it as connected with the first motion.

Mr. J. BROWN asked whether it was in order for a gentleman to speak five
or six times.

Mr. THATCHER said he had spoken but once on this question. The gentleman
from Rhode Island need not be afraid, for he was not now going to say
much about slavery, which was the nearest to his heart. Mr. T. was fully
of the opinion that the House had a right to take up the subject, and
give it a full, free, and deliberate discussion, but this did not
appear to be the general opinion. As he was opposed to the motion, as
amended, he was willing his name should appear against it, even though
no other gentleman should think fit to vote with him.

Mr. GALLATIN conceived that there certainly were parts of the petition
over which that House had no power, for though the petitioners did not
pray for emancipation to be completed immediately, yet they anticipated
that it would some time be done, and their prayer included a wish that
the House would take a preparatory step. As to the amendment, although
he did not like the wording of it altogether, he had no objection to the
principle, and therefore should vote for it; for he thought it right to
say that it was improper for the House to legislate on the subject. What
was not specifically acknowledged by the constitution, in his opinion,
carried with it a doubt upon which the Legislature ought not to enter.

Mr. THATCHER called for a division of the question.

Mr. NICHOLAS, on this, expressed some embarrassment as to giving his
vote, on which he moved to strike out the latter part. The same appeared
to pervade the minds of several gentlemen.

Mr. WALN, therefore, to relieve the House from the situation, withdrew
his acquiescence to the amendment, so as to leave the questions
distinct. The yeas and nays had been several times moved during the
embarrassed state of the House, but were only taken once, to wit, on the
amendment to the proposition:

      "And that the parts of the said petition which invite
      Congress to legislate upon subjects from which the General
      Government is precluded by the constitution, have a
      tendency to create disquiet and jealousy, and ought
      therefore to receive no encouragement or countenance from
      this House."

The question was taken, that the House do agree to the same, and
resolved in the affirmative--yeas 85, nay 1, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, George Baer, Theodorus Bailey, Bailey
      Bartlett, James A. Bayard, John Bird, Phanuel Bishop,
      Jonathan Brace, John Brown, Robert Brown, Christopher G.
      Champlin, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, William C. C.
      Claiborne, John Condit, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport,
      Franklin Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, John
      Dennis, George Dent, William Edmond, Joseph Eggleston,
      Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight
      Foster, John Fowler, Jonathan Freeman, Albert Gallatin,
      Henry Glenn, Samuel Goode, Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur
      Goodrich, William Gordon, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Roger
      Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert
      Goodloe Harper, Joseph Heister, Archibald Henderson,
      William H. Hill, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, James H.
      Imlay, George Jackson, James Jones, Aaron Kitchell, Henry
      Lee, Nathaniel Macon, John Marshall, Lewis R. Morris,
      Anthony New, John Nicholas, Joseph H. Nicholson, Abraham
      Nott, Harrison G. Otis, Robert Page, Josiah Parker, Jonas
      Platt, Leven Powell, John Randolph, John Read, John
      Rutledge, junior, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Richard
      Stanford, David Stone, Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Taliaferro,
      John Chew Thomas, Richard Thomas, John Thompson, Abram
      Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln,
      Robert Williams, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAY.--George Thatcher.

And then the main question, to agree to the said motion, as amended,
being taken, it was resolved in the affirmative.


TUESDAY, January 7.

JAMES SHEAFE, of New Hampshire, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat in the House.


FRIDAY, February 7.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

The following Message and documents were received from the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, which were read, and ordered to lie on the table:

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

      In consequence of your request to me, conveyed in your
      resolution of the fourth of this month, I directed the
      Secretary of State to lay before me copies of the papers
      intended. These copies, together with his report, I now
      transmit to the House of Representatives, for the
      consideration of the members.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _Feb. 7, 1800_.


                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
                          _February 6, 1800_.

      The Secretary of State has prepared, as directed, and now
      respectfully submits to the President of the United States,
      copies of the papers which probably were contemplated by
      the House of Representatives, in their resolve of the 4th
      instant; although no requisition, as the resolve supposes,
      has ever been received, nor any communication made to the
      Judge of the District Court of South Carolina, concerning
      any man by the name of Jonathan Robbins. But by the
      proceedings before that Judge, as they have been published,
      it appears that a seaman named Thomas Nash, the subject of
      the British Minister's requisition, did assume the name of
      Jonathan Robbins, and make oath "that he was a native of
      the State of Connecticut, and born in Danbury, in that
      State." The Secretary, therefore, besides the copy of the
      requisition, and the copies of his letter to the Judge of
      the District Court of South Carolina, and of the Judge's
      answer, has prepared, and herewith encloses, copies of the
      certificates of the selectmen and town clerk of Danbury,
      and extracts of letters from Admiral Sir Hyde Parker,
      satisfactorily proving that the Thomas Nash, calling
      himself Jonathan Robbins, who, on the requisition of the
      British Minister, was delivered by the Judge aforesaid,
      with the assent of the President of the United States, was
      not an American citizen, but a native Irishman, who to his
      other crimes added _perjury_, in the hope, thereby, to
      escape the punishment due to _piracy_ and _murder_. The
      original certificates of the selectmen and townclerk of
      Danbury are in the Secretary's possession; and he has
      compared the extract of Admiral Parker's letter to Mr.
      Liston with the original, and the extract of the Admiral's
      letter to the British Consul at Charleston, with the
      passage as recited in the Consul's original letter to Mr.
      Liston.

      All which is respectfully submitted.

                          TIMOTHY PICKERING.

      Copy of a note from Robert Liston, Esq., Envoy
      Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic
      Majesty, to Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State of the
      United States.

                          PHILADELPHIA, _May 23, 1799_.

      R. Liston presents his respects to Col. Pickering,
      Secretary of State. A seaman of the name of Thomas Nash
      having been committed to jail in Charleston, South
      Carolina, at the instance of His Majesty's Consul there, on
      suspicion of his having been an accomplice in the piracy
      and murder committed on board His Majesty's ship Hermione,
      and information of the circumstance having been transmitted
      to Vice Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, a cutter was despatched to
      Charleston, with an officer on board to whom the man was
      well known, in order that his person might be identified,
      and that he should be carried to the West Indies for trial.
      But on the application of the Consul for the restoration of
      Nash, in conformity to the treaty of 1794, Judge Bee and
      the Federal Attorney were of opinion that he could not with
      propriety be delivered up, without a previous requisition
      on my part made to the Executive Government of the United
      States. May I therefore request, sir, that you will be
      pleased to lay this matter before the President, and
      procure his orders that the said Thomas Nash be delivered
      up to justice.

Letter from the Secretary of State to Judge Bee.


                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
                          _Philadelphia, June 3, 1799_.

      SIR: Mr. Liston, the Minister of His Britannic Majesty has
      requested, that Thomas Nash, who was a seaman on board the
      British frigate Hermione, and who, he is informed, is now a
      prisoner in the jail of Charleston, should be delivered up.
      I have stated the matter to the President of the United
      States. He considers an offence committed on board a public
      ship of war, on the high seas, to have been committed
      within the jurisdiction of the nation to whom the ship
      belongs. Nash is charged, it is understood, with _piracy_
      and _murder_, committed by him on board the above mentioned
      British frigate, on the high seas, and consequently within
      the jurisdiction of His Britannic Majesty; and therefore,
      by the 27th article of the Treaty of Amity with Great
      Britain, Nash ought to be delivered up, as requested by the
      British Minister, provided such evidence of his criminality
      be produced as, by the laws of the United States or of
      South Carolina, would justify his apprehension and
      commitment for trial, if the offence had been committed
      within the jurisdiction of the United States. The President
      has in consequence thereof authorized me to communicate to
      you "his advice and request" that Thomas Nash may be
      delivered up to the Consul or other agent of Great Britain,
      who shall appear to receive him. I have the honor to be,
      &c.

                          TIMOTHY PICKERING.

      Hon. THOMAS BEE,

      _Judge of the District of South Carolina_.

Letter from Thomas Bee, Esq., to the Secretary of State, dated
Charleston, South Carolina, July 1st, 1799.

      In compliance with the request of the President of the
      United States as stated in your favor of the 3d. ult., I
      gave notice to the British Consul that at the sitting of
      the district court on this day I should order Thomas Nash,
      the prisoner charged with having committed murder and
      piracy on board the British frigate Hermione, on such
      strong evidence of his criminality as justified his
      apprehension and commitment for trial, to be brought before
      me on habeas corpus, in order to his being delivered over
      agreeably to the 27th article of the Treaty of Amity with
      Great Britain. The Consul attended in court and requested
      that the prisoner should remain in jail until he had a
      convenient opportunity of sending him away. I have
      therefore directed that he remain in prison, until the
      Consul shall find it convenient to remove him. I have the
      honor to be, with great respect, your most obedient
      servant,

                          THOMAS BEE,
                          _District Judge of South Carolina_.
                          Hon. T. PICKERING, _Secretary of State_.

             *       *       *       *       *

      DANBURY, _Sept. 16, 1799_.

      We, the subscribers, selectmen of the town of Danbury, in
      the State of Connecticut, certify that we have always been
      the inhabitants of said town, and are from forty-five to
      fifty-seven years of age, and have never known an
      inhabitant of this town by the name of Jonathan or Nathan
      Robbins, and that there has not been, nor now is any family
      known by the name of Robbins within the limits of said
      town.

      Certified, per

                          ELI MYGOT.
                          EBEN BENEDICT.
                          JUSTUS BARNUM.
                          BEN. HICHCOK.

             *       *       *       *       *

      DANBURY, _Sept 10, 1799_.

      The subscriber, late town clerk for the town of Danbury, in
      the State of Connecticut, certifies that he kept the town
      records twenty-five years, viz: from the year 1771 until
      the year 1796; that he is now fifty-six years of age, and
      that he never knew any person by the name of Robbins, born
      or residing in the said town of Danbury, during that term
      of twenty-five years, before or since.

                          MAJOR TAYLOR.

             *       *       *       *       *

      Extract of a letter from Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, to Robert
      Liston, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
      Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty to the United
      States, dated

                          PORT ROYAL HARBOR,
                          "_Jamaica, Sept. 9, 1799_.

      "I have had the honor of receiving duplicates of your
      Excellency's letters, numbered 10, 11, 12, and, in answer
      thereto, acquaint you that in consequence of Nash, one of
      the ringleaders in the mutiny, murders, &c., on board the
      Hermione, being delivered up by the United States to me, he
      has been tried at a court martial, and sentenced to suffer
      death, and afterwards hung in chains, which sentence has
      been put into execution. He acknowledged himself to be an
      Irishman."

             *       *       *       *       *

      Extract of a letter from Benjamin Moodie, Esq., Consul of
      his Britannic Majesty at Charleston, South Carolina, to
      Robert Liston, Esq., Envoy of his said Majesty to the
      United States, dated

                          NOVEMBER 19, 1799.

      In consequence of many obstacles I had to encounter in
      obtaining the delivery of Thomas Nash, late of His
      Majesty's ship Hermione, and of the numerous publications
      to the northward and in this place, I wrote to Admiral Sir
      Hyde Parker, requesting he would be good enough to send me
      minutes of the court martial, to which he answered under
      date 13th September: "I am to acquaint you that Nash has
      been executed agreeably to a court martial, and that he
      confessed himself to be an Irishman; and it further
      appears, by the Hermione's books, that he was born at
      Waterford; on the 21st December, 1792, entered a volunteer
      on board the Dover, received £3 bounty money, and was
      removed to the Hermione, 28th of January, 1793. And with
      respect to transmitting the minutes of his trial, that is
      not in my power, but rests with the Lords of the Admiralty
      only."


MONDAY, February 10.

_Amy Dardin's Claim for the Horse Romulus._

The petition of Amy Dardin was called up, and after some opposition, on
account of a former reference and decision, was referred to the
Committee of Claims.


THURSDAY, February 13.

_Military Interference in Elections._

Mr. LEIB called up for consideration the following resolution, which he
laid on the table on the 4th instant, viz:

      _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to _bring in a
      bill making_ provision for the removal of the regular
      troops of the United States which may be stationed where an
      election is held, and that such removal shall take place at
      least two days previous to such election, and to a distance
      not less than two miles.

Mr. OTIS moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words in
_italic_, in the second line, and inserting "inquire into the expediency
of."

A long debate ensued on this motion, in which it was conceded, on all
sides, that the resolution was too definite, and left nothing in the
power of the committee to act on, except merely bringing in a bill
conformable to it. If excesses had been committed by the military at
elections, and they were guilty of improper interference, it seemed to
be the wish of every member that some provision should be made to guard
against them in future; but they were unwilling to say what that
provision should be, until an inquiry were made into the facts stated.
The removal of the troops to the distance mentioned, was also
particularly objected to, as it might leave fortifications, arsenals,
and military stores, for two or three days, entirely unprotected.

Mr. LEIB at length withdrew his original proposition, and submitted the
following, which was adopted without objection, viz:

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and
      report a bill, containing such legislative provisions as
      may be judged expedient, either for removing any military
      force of the United States, from any place of holding
      elections, or for preventing their interference in such
      elections."

Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. LEIB and Mr. OTIS, were appointed the committee.

_Amendment to the Constitution._

Mr. LIVINGSTON laid the following joint resolution on the table:

      _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
      United States of America, in Congress assembled_, 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
      said Legislatures, shall be valid as a part of the said
      constitution, viz:

      No Judge of any Court of the United States shall, during
      his continuance in office, or within six months after he
      may have resigned the same, be appointed to any other than
      a judiciary office, under the United States.


MONDAY, February 17.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, he had expected that some order would have been taken
on the Message of the President, before this time, by the gentleman who
called for it; but as he had been disappointed, he would now give notice
to the honorable member from New York that he would call for some order
upon the Message to-morrow.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, the gentleman had momentarily anticipated him; he
meant to have moved for a reference to a Committee of the whole House
this morning, with an intention to introduce certain resolutions, and he
would now make that motion.

The question on commitment was put and carried--yeas 50, nays 43; and
was made the order of the day for Friday.

Mr. BAYARD then laid the following resolution on the table, which was
read and referred to the above committee, viz:

      _Resolved_, That the conduct of the Executive Government of
      the United States, in relation to the requisition made by
      his Britannic Majesty's Minister, of the delivery up to
      justice of Thomas Nash, otherwise called Jonathan Robbins,
      upon the charge of murder, committed on board of the
      Hermione British frigate, which said Nash had sought an
      asylum within the United States, was conformable to the
      duty of the Government, and to the obligations of good
      faith stipulated in the 27th article of the Treaty of
      Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, made with Great Britain.


THURSDAY, February 20.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

Mr. LIVINGSTON proposed the following resolutions:

      "_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that a person,
      calling himself Jonathan Robbins, and claiming to be a
      citizen of the United States, impressed on board a British
      ship-of-war, was committed for trial in one of the courts
      of the United States for the alleged crime of piracy and
      murder, committed on the high seas, on board the British
      frigate Hermione: That a requisition being, subsequent to
      such commitment, made by the British Minister to the
      Executive of the United States, for the delivery of the
      said person (under the name of Thomas Nash) as a fugitive,
      under the 27th article of the Treaty with Great Britain,
      the President of the United States did, by a letter written
      from the Department of State to the Judge who committed the
      said person for trial, officially declare his opinion to
      the said Judge that he 'considered an offence committed on
      board a public ship of war on the high seas to have been
      committed within the jurisdiction of the nation to whom the
      ship belongs;' and, in consequence of such opinion and
      instruction, did advise and request the said Judge to
      deliver up the person so claimed to the agent of Great
      Britain, who should appear to receive him, provided only
      that the stipulated evidence of his criminality should be
      produced. That in compliance with such advice and request
      of the President of the United States, the said person so
      committed for trial was, by the Judge of the District of
      South Carolina, without any presentment or trial by jury,
      or any investigation of his claim to be a citizen of the
      United States, delivered up to an officer of his Britannic
      Majesty, and afterwards tried by a court martial, and
      executed on a charge of mutiny and murder.

      "_Resolved_, That inasmuch as the Constitution of the
      United States declares that the Judiciary Power shall
      extend to all questions arising under the Constitution,
      laws, and treaties, of the United States, and to all cases
      of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction: and, also, that the
      trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachment) shall
      be by jury; and that such trial shall be held in the State
      where such crime shall have been committed; but when not
      committed within any State, then at such place or places as
      Congress may by law have directed; and inasmuch as it is
      directed by law that the offence of murder committed on the
      high seas shall be deemed to be piracy and murder, and that
      'all crimes committed on the high seas, or in any place out
      of the jurisdiction of any particular State, shall be tried
      in the district where the offender is apprehended, or into
      which he may be first brought:' therefore the several
      questions, whether the alleged crime of piracy and murder
      was committed within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great
      Britain; whether it comes within the purview of the said
      twenty-seventh article; and whether a person stating that
      he was an American citizen, and had committed the act of
      which he was accused in attempting to regain his liberty
      from illegal imprisonment, ought to be delivered up,
      without any investigation of his claims to citizenship, or
      inquiry into the facts alleged in his defence, are all
      matters exclusively of judicial inquiry as arising from
      treaties, laws, constitutional provisions, and cases of
      admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

      "_Resolved_, That the decision of those questions by the
      President of the United States, against the jurisdiction of
      the courts of the United States, in a case where those
      courts had already assumed and exercised jurisdiction: and
      his advice and request to the Judge of the district court
      that the person thus charged should be delivered up,
      provided only such evidence of his criminality should be
      produced as would justify his apprehension and commitment
      for trial, are a dangerous interference of the Executive
      with Judicial decisions; and that the compliance with such
      advice and request on the part of the Judge of the District
      Court of South Carolina, is a sacrifice of the
      Constitutional independence of the Judicial power, and
      exposes the administration thereof to suspicion and
      reproach."

The question of reference to the Committee of the Whole was taken and
carried--yeas 55.

The House then adjourned.


FRIDAY, February 21.

_Eulogium on the Character of Washington._

A message was received from the Senate informing the House that the
Senate had this day come to the following resolution, viz:

      "_Resolved_, That the Senate will to-morrow, at half past
      12 o'clock, meet in the Senate Chamber, and from thence
      walk in procession to the church in Race street, to hear
      the eulogium to be pronounced on the character of General
      Washington."

Ordered to lie on the table.

The SPEAKER said he was requested, by a member of the Catholic church,
to inform the House that seats were provided for the accommodation of
such members as would please to attend to hear the delivery of the
oration to-morrow.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, before the receipt of the message from the Senate, he
had intended to move that when the House adjourn they do adjourn till
Monday; but the Senate having informed the House that they intended to
walk in procession, he conceived this House ought to come to a similar
resolution, and moved the following:

      "_Resolved_, That the House of Representatives will meet
      to-morrow, at half-past 12 o'clock, at their Chamber, and
      from thence walk in procession to the church in Race
      street, to hear the eulogium there to be pronounced on the
      character of General Washington."

It was objected to this resolution, that it had not been contemplated
this House would walk in procession, no arrangement having been made for
that purpose; and that as it might be the wish of several members to
attend the oration at the Catholic Church in preference to the one in
Race street, it ought to be left to their own option.

The question on the resolution was put and negatived--yeas 40, nays 43.


MONDAY, February 24.

_Western Lands._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report
made the 18th instant, by the committee appointed to inquire whether
any, and, if any, what, alterations are necessary in the laws providing
for the sale of the lands of the United States north-west of the Ohio;
and, after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported
several resolutions thereupon; which were severally twice read, and
agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That all the townships directed to be sold, either in
quarter townships or in tracts of one mile square, by the act "providing
for the sale of the lands of the United States, in the Territory
north-west of the river Ohio, and above the mouth of Kentucky River,"
shall be subdivided into half sections, containing, as nearly as may be,
three hundred and twenty acres each: the additional expense of surveying
to be paid by the purchaser, at the rate of three dollars per tract.

_Resolved_, That all the said lands shall be offered for sale at public
sale, in tracts of three hundred and twenty acres as above directed:
_Provided_, That the same shall not be sold under the price of two
dollars per acre, and that the sale shall be at the following places, to
wit:

All the lands contained in the seven first ranges of townships, and
north of the same, shall be offered for sale at Pittsburg.

All the lands contained in the eight next ranges of townships, shall be
offered for sale at Marietta.

All the lands lying west of the fifteen first ranges of townships, and
east of the Sciota River, shall be offered for sale at Chillicothe.

All the lands lying below the Great Miami shall be offered for sale at
Cincinnati.

_Resolved_, That one or more land offices shall be opened in the
North-western Territory, and that every person be permitted to locate
and purchase, at the rate of two dollars per acre, one or more of the
half sections that shall not have been sold at public sale.

_Resolved_, That the payments for lands purchased either at public or
private sale, may be made as heretofore in public securities, and shall
be made in the following manner, and under the following conditions,
viz:

1st. At the time of purchase, every purchaser shall deposit
one-twentieth part of the amount of purchase-money; to be forfeited, if,
within three months, one-fourth of the purchase-money, including the
said twentieth part, is not paid.

2d. One-fourth of the purchase-money to be paid as aforesaid, within
three months, and the other three-fourths in three equal payments,
within two, three, and four years, respectively, after the date of the
purchase.

3d. No interest to be charged in case of punctual payment; but interest
at the rate of six per cent. a year, to be charged from the date of
purchase, on any part of the purchase-money which shall not have been
paid at the time, respectively, when the same shall have become due.

4th. A discount at the rate of eight per cent. a year, to be allowed on
any of the three last payments, which shall be paid before the same
shall have become due.

5th. If any tract shall not be completely paid for within one year after
the date of the last payment, the tract to be sold in such manner as
shall be provided by law; and after paying the balance due to the
United States, including interest, the surplus, if any, to be returned
to the original purchaser.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said
resolutions; and that Mr. HARRISON, Mr. BRACE, Mr. GORDON, Mr. DAVIS,
Mr. LYMAN, and Mr. GALLATIN, do prepare and bring in the same.


TUESDAY, February 25.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

The House having resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
Message of the PRESIDENT respecting Jonathan Robbins, a short debate
took place whether the committee should take up the business of the
resolution first proposed by Mr. BAYARD, or those subsequently offered
by Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. BAYARD seemed inclined to withdraw his motion,
but the committee seeming of opinion that both resolutions were within
their jurisdiction, and that they might proceed on either, the question
was taken whether the committee would proceed on the resolutions of Mr.
LIVINGSTON and carried in the affirmative.[49] Messrs. BAYARD, RUTLEDGE,
OTIS, &c., voting in favor of the question, and Messrs. LIVINGSTON,
NICHOLAS, &c., against it.

Mr. LIVINGSTON then entered upon an argument in support of the
resolutions which he had some days before submitted to the House, and
which now were taken up. Soon after he began the discussion, he was
proceeding to read a deposition of Jonathan Robbins, and certificates
accompanying the same, to prove himself a citizen of the United States,
in which the deponent swore, before the court of South Carolina, that he
was born at Danbury in the State of Connecticut, and that he was
impressed from on board the American brig Betsey, by the crew of the
British frigate, about two years before, where he was detained contrary
to his will until the mutiny occurred.

Mr. BAYARD opposed the reference to a fact so incompetently
authenticated as the report of a case upon newspaper testimony,
especially when, if it had been the desire of the gentleman to have
introduced it as evidence, it was extremely easy to have procured the
record of the court before he proceeded on his allegations. If such
evidence as this was to be admitted, other and perhaps more important
evidence might next be introduced to impose on the committee. Besides,
it certainly must be looked upon as _ex parte_ evidence, which it was
impossible to repel. Mr. B. submitted to the Chair whether it would be
in order to admit any fresh evidence to support the resolutions, when
all the documents which had been asked for, and which had come to the
knowledge of the Executive, had been submitted to the House.

Mr. GALLATIN, on the question of order, contended for the admission:
this document, he said, was referred to as authentic, in his letter. He
says, "That, by the proceedings before that judge, (Bee,) as they have
been published, it appears that a seaman named Thomas Nash did assume
the name of Jonathan Robbins, and make oath that he was a native of the
State of Connecticut," &c. Certainly it cannot be deemed improper to
refer to the identical document there mentioned. If it was proper for
the Secretary of State to make the allusion, the House could take it up
under the same idea. He did not think it was introduced as evidence
before the committee.

Mr. DANA said he was very sorry the gentleman had been interrupted; he
could not think of admitting it as evidence, but the gentleman might
read it as part of his speech, which perhaps might otherwise have a
chasm in it.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said he did wish to read this paper as part of his
speech; and he believed it a very material part, because it was a
justification of a point which he wished to establish; he wished to show
the committee that Jonathan Robbins claimed to be an American citizen,
and that he said he was impressed. This he swore to in court; and that
he did so, he hoped would be admitted. He said he only introduced it
with this view. Surely he could not be so far mistaken in his law
knowledge as to be thought to have said that the culprit could be
evidence in his own behalf. If _he did say_ he was a citizen, then the
matter, upon examination, must appear more serious than gentlemen would
be willing to think.

Mr. BAYARD had no doubt but it was the gentleman's intention to impress
the force of the facts contained in that paper upon the minds of that
committee; and to suppose it would have no impression would be absurd.
It would afterwards be said that this man was admitted to be an
impressed American citizen, and that he was praiseworthy in committing
what would then be called the homicide. The decision of the committee
would be much affected, he said, by the kind of evidence which was
adduced. If this was admitted, it would be impossible to ascertain the
extent of the principle. Other depositions may be produced--indeed, he
had no doubt but the gentleman could get proof to any point which he
might think it material to ascertain. In saying this, he did not mean to
insinuate that any improper steps would be taken by that gentleman, but
there were volunteers enough to be found who would step forward in
order to answer a party purpose, and make oath of any thing.

Mr. LIVINGSTON supposed he should increase the astonishment of gentlemen
still more when he declared that he did not believe a word of the
affidavit; but he believed Nash was an Irishman, and that he entered on
board and committed all the crimes charged to him. It was clear that
this affidavit could not be evidence. In admitting this, he believed he
did not surrender one point of the resolutions; he should prove that all
which he wished to ascertain was that such _claim_ was made to the
court.

Mr. BAYARD asked where could be the necessity of proving a fact which
every member of the House was willing to admit. All acknowledged that
Nash _claimed_ to be an American citizen; but perhaps the wish of the
gentleman was to have additional light on this subject, on which account
he introduced the deposition. But, Mr. B. said, he was willing only to
proceed upon what the House knew from the documents before them, and not
take a step on precarious ground. It must be well known what the
gentleman wanted to get this admission for; he no doubt wished to prove
that, upon his own mere suggestion, he was an American citizen, and that
he was impressed--he was entitled to a trial by jury in this country,
and on that account the act of sending him away was unconstitutional.
This would lead to an extensive field of argument. If there was any
necessity for more evidence, or to call witnesses to the bar of the
House, let proper measures be taken to procure them, but let them not
come forward in any other way.

Mr. DANA read the resolution first offered to the House for a call for
papers relative to Jonathan Robbins; this was answered, he said, by the
Secretary of State, that no requisition or proceedings had been had in
that name; but he presumed allusion was made to the case of Thomas Nash,
concerning whom proceedings were had in the District Court of South
Carolina; in that way, and that only, the Secretary made reference to
the printed report. In this blundering way, Mr. D. said, the business
was begun. [He was called to order.] In addition to this, he said, the
proceedings of gentlemen were erroneous; but, notwithstanding that, Mr.
D. said, he would gratify the feelings of the gentleman, as far as his
vote would go, for him to read it, but only as part of his speech. No
doubt he wished to support some point of his argument by it, and in that
view he had a right to read it; but that it was evidence, he denied.

The CHAIRMAN having stated his reasons, concluded with an opinion that
the member could not proceed to read the affidavit.

Mr. GALLATIN appealed to the committee from the decision of the Chair;
when there appeared 39 in favor of the decision, and 48 against it.

At this point the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.


WEDNESDAY, February 26.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

Mr. DAVIS moved that the Committee of the whole House be discharged from
the further consideration of the resolutions proposed by Mr. LIVINGSTON
and Mr. BAYARD, on the affair of Jonathan Robbins. The small progress,
Mr. D. said, which was made yesterday in the discussion, fully convinced
his mind that nothing at all would be done in it; besides, were he
convinced that the subject would be impartially conducted, he did not
know of any possible good that could arise from the adoption of the
resolutions. If there had been any error in the proceedings of the
Executive, he conceived that error would correct itself. If there was an
improper interference, he was certain it could not have arisen from
improper motives, and therefore he sincerely hoped he should not be
called upon to give an opinion on the subject. Nor, on the other hand,
was he at all prepared to compliment the Executive, or any officer of
the Government, for having done what he thought to be right. If he had
done right, it was his duty. He did not think it of any great
importance; but, most assuredly, if the argument was extended, it would
be made a case of much importance. It was better, however, to let the
case of Jonathan Robbins sleep in the Committee of the Whole, where it
then was. He was not prepared to criminate, nor was he prepared to
applaud.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, that no gentleman had a higher respect for the
motives of the gentleman from Kentucky than himself; but, however
disagreeable it might be, he must differ from him in his present
opinion. He really hoped the gentleman would reconsider the motion he
had made, and not stop the gentleman from New York in this early stage
of the business. If there were any defects in the papers, and their
authenticity was questionable, it must not arise from the gentleman from
New York, but from those whose duty it was to furnish all the facts
relative to the subject. He was obliged to read a printed paper, because
those with whom the authoritative copies are, have not thought proper to
furnish the House with them. He hoped, if a stop was put to the
proceedings, it would not be to discharge the committee, but to call for
authentic copies of all the papers within the reach of the Government.
It must be acknowledged that the man whose case the House are
considering did put in his claims to citizenship, and to the protection
of his country on that account. If that acknowledgment is refused on
account of the paper which has been produced being a newspaper,
reference must be made to what is within the reach of the House--more
authentic papers.

Mr. H. LEE considered the motion would have the complete effect any
gentleman could wish whose desire it was to reprobate the conduct of the
Administration of our Government. How could the motion be necessary--how
be useful? If they were to ask more evidence, said Mr. L., I would vote
for it to be produced; they have brought the subject before the
House--let us see it in the purest colors which it can be placed in. We
are ready to meet them here; we are willing they should have every
evidence that can be obtained to elucidate their charge; but let not the
Executive be hung up to reproach without a trial; let not suspicion be
encouraged, which must have all the effects of a substantiated charge. I
wish them to go on with the discussion, that all the truth may be
disclosed, and every fair light be given which the case will bear; for
now the people of the United States have their eyes fixed upon our
proceedings on this important question.

Mr. MACON was in favor of the motion. If the Committee of the Whole was
not to be discharged, he hoped at least the subject would be postponed
till the public business of the session was over; there were many public
bills, he said, that must be passed. The House was called upon to judge
with almost no testimony, and yet upon this uncertain ground, perhaps a
whole week might be spent of the most precious time of the House; for if
the House was to rise at the time proposed, the loss of this time would
certainly be felt.

As to the impression it would leave on the minds of the people, they had
as many facts to judge from as the House, and they certainly would form
an opinion, whether the House did so, or not. Gentlemen were very much
mistaken, he said, if they undertook to lead the people; they would
think, and they would show what their judgment was when a proper time
came for that purpose. The time the people would take to show their
approbation or disapprobation of the measures of the Administration was
at elections, and then they would do it.

Mr. DANA was against the postponement of the subject, or the rising of
the committee. It was to be recollected that the business had assumed
its present shape only in consequence of the zeal of the gentleman from
New York, and his coadjutors, to censure the Executive. On the 7th of
February, it was committed to the whole House; contrary to the opinion
of a number of gentlemen, who wished the facts investigated by a select
committee; thirteen days then elapsed before he had prepared his
resolutions--resolutions not calculated to make an inquiry into the
conduct of the Executive, but expressive of the most pungent censure
upon his conduct. These resolutions were produced upon the papers which,
at the desire of those gentlemen, were submitted to the House. The only
question then, is, Do the papers upon which those resolutions are
predicated warrant the censure contained in them, or not?--It certainly
would be a high reproach to the very idea of a public inquisition to
admit more evidence upon those grounds. Still, however, let gentlemen go
on in their heterogeneous proceedings, the House would have the wisdom
justly to appreciate the various attempts made to clear themselves of a
predicament in which their over-arduous attempts to censure had thrown
them.

Mr. LIVINGSTON conceived it his duty to answer the observations of the
gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. DANA,) as to the resolutions being
founded upon the facts then before the House. He did not think the facts
were precisely sufficient to warrant every idea contained in the
resolutions. When the original call for papers was agreed to by the
House, he had hoped that something more authentic than newspaper
testimony would have been referred to by the Executive; and upon that he
was now compelled to act, if at all. The gentleman has said that my zeal
and that of my coadjutors, to censure the Executive, has brought us into
this situation. Who, sir, I would ask the gentleman, are my coadjutors?
That gentleman himself was my coadjutor, and every gentleman in the
House, because the resolution was adopted. The House directed the
inquiry, and every gentleman must therefore take the burden, in part,
with me.

Mr. CRAIK said, that very early in this business he thought the House
were entering into it very improperly, either having nothing at all to
do with it, or else taking wrong measures, if they had; he thought then,
and was yet of opinion, that if the object was to impeach the President,
measures ought to have been taken accordingly. He never did look upon
the House of Representatives as having either the power to censure or to
approbate the conduct of the Executive, and, therefore, he equally
disapproved of the resolutions of the gentlemen from New York and
Delaware; and, upon that ground, he felt strongly inclined to vote with
the gentleman from Kentucky for giving the whole subject the go by, and
getting clear of it by any possible means.

Mr. HARPER agreed with the gentleman, that it would be folly for the
House to spend time in useless discussion, which could lead to no
decision; but, viewing this resolution as he did, he must conclude it of
more importance; he thought it the direct road to an impeachment of the
President of the United States, and, if so, surely it must appear
important. The resolution declared, in express terms, that the Executive
had exercised unconstitutional powers--one of the most dangerous crimes
that he could commit. If he had so exercised his power, the inevitable
consequence must be, that the President of the United States must be
impeached by this House. Then, how could any gentleman say this was a
trifling question, and one with which the House had nothing at all to
do? Certainly no question can be more important.

Mr. RUTLEDGE regretted that he could not join with his friend from
Maryland, (Mr. CRAIK,) in thinking this consideration useless; he
believed the attention of the people had been called to view this
subject, and they were anxiously looking for a decision in some way.
Neither did he think, with his honorable friend, that the House had
nothing to do with it, because no impeachment could grow out of it. It
was impossible to say what the gentleman meditated in his resolutions,
but one thing was certain, if the gentleman has wished to promote an
impeachment, he could not have taken a more direct means for it, if the
resolutions should be carried.

Mr. KITCHELL thought no good could arise from the investigation of this
subject, because he did not know what was to be done in it, let the
decision be what it might. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
HARPER) wished to have an opportunity of showing that every part of the
resolution was built on false ground. Every gentleman in the House was
not so fond of speaking nor of hearing as was that gentleman, and he
hoped, merely on that account, that the House would not spend time on
what (in his opinion) could not possibly lead to impeachment. What
effect could a discussion have, but to show the world that there were
_parties_ in the House, and to raise a rancorous disposition? He did not
know what there was in the resolution that could lead to an impeachment,
nor did he know what the House, in their censorial capacity, had to do
but to impeach. He believed it out of the power of the House to applaud.
In short, he did not think they had any thing to do with it.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the discussion would proceed. Although there might
not be sufficient ground on which to impeach the Executive, he could not
agree that, therefore, no inquiry ought to be made into his conduct;
there might be an error in his conduct, and yet no impeachment be
necessary to be raised out of it; and, if so, it would be extremely
wrong to suffer it to go out to the world without a decision, after the
subject had once been taken up by the House. Where there might be no bad
intention or wicked design, the action might be of a dangerous tendency,
and proper to be inquired into, in order to express an opinion
thereupon. Mr. N. said he was well pleased that his opinion, that the
motion ought to be negatived, accorded with that of the gentleman from
South Carolina, because it would afford him an opportunity of showing
what he said he could show.

Mr. BAYARD had no doubt of the competency of the House either to
impeach, to censure, or to approbate the conduct of the Executive, and
of course both the resolutions were in their power.

Several gentlemen had intimated that the authentic evidence and the
whole of the documents were not before the House, and that the Executive
Department was to blame for the deficiency. It appeared that the
gentleman himself had forgotten the import of his resolution; it called
for such documents as might be in possession of the Department of State.
Now, what could possibly be in possession of that Department? The
President of the United States had his duties to perform, and the judge
of the district his duties; each had their separate documents; and, as
neither interfered with the other, therefore, it could not be expected
to be in the power of the President to furnish the papers belonging to
the courts of South Carolina, any further than they came within the
joint duties of both. Agreeably to treaty, the British Consul made a
requisition for the person; a copy of this, and the several letters and
instructions, were sent to the House, but it was not in the power of the
Executive to order the judge to furnish him with a record of the
proceedings; he was not bound to furnish it if the President had called
for it, and no doubt he had furnished the House with every paper in his
possession.

Mr. OTIS said, when first the motion was made by the gentleman from
Kentucky, he felt for a moment inclined to lean to it; the motives of
that gentleman appeared to be so candid and liberal, that, for the
moment, Mr. O. confessed, his feelings got the better of his reason. But
a short reflection induced him to change an opinion thus hastily formed,
and he felt satisfied that to vote with him, would be to display, in the
conduct of gentlemen who wished to support the Administration of this
country, worse than censure. He joined that gentleman in regret that it
had gone so far, but certainly it was a subject of the most irritating
nature possible: a charge the most serious; a breach of law by the
Executive Magistrate, who is bound to support it and see it carried into
effect. It is certainly a charge of much importance, and however
disagreeable it might feel to him, Mr. O. said, he must vote that every
argument should be used that could possibly tend to substantiate the
charge, that nothing of truth might be hidden.

Mr. O. said he did not know to what points the evidence required by the
gentleman from New York could apply, except it was to that of his being
an American citizen, and of his being impressed. An affidavit was
produced to prove these facts, but it would be found from an examination
of the documents that nothing relating to those points was in the office
of the Department of State; for the date of the affidavit of Robbins is
the 25th of July, but the order of the Secretary of State bears date the
5th of June, so that no papers as to his claim can be in the possession
of that department. Mr. O. thought the documents before the House
contained every thing that was important to the point.

Mr. CRAIK was sorry that gentlemen who advocated this motion should be
charged with an opposition to the administration of Government; he
believed his conduct had heretofore evinced a different line of conduct.
He still denied that the mode taken by the resolution could lead to
impeachment. It certainly did contain a very great censure, and one
which the House had no authority to inflict.

Mr. GALLATIN considered the motion to be grounded on two ideas; that
there was not sufficient foundation for the House to act upon, and
therefore that it was necessary to discharge the committee, or postpone
the subject for want of further evidence.

It is clear, said Mr. G., that the evidence is not sufficient to impeach
the District Judge of South Carolina. If an impeachment of him was the
object, it would be impossible to carry it forward without an
authoritative copy of the record of the court; but if there was no
intention to impeach, he did not think there was any material evidence
wanted in order to decide upon the resolution, since it only meant an
implication of censure upon the Executive and the District Judge, and
not impeachment.

Mr. G. agreed there was at first sight some weight in the sentiment
expressed by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. CRAIK,) that the House
had only a power to impeach but not to censure; but certainly, when it
was considered that an act might be committed without any ill motive,
and yet the act be injurious, it could not be the subject of
impeachment, but it might be of censure. The same act committed with a
criminal motive would be impeachable, which without it would be of a
nature not to admit of it.

Again: Mr. G. thought that though the House might have ground whereupon
to censure, they ought not, at any time; but they had exercised that
power. They had in a number of cases approved of the conduct of the
President, and if the act of approbation had been done, they surely had
as much power to disapprove and censure.

The question was then taken on the motion to discharge the Committee of
the Whole from the further consideration, and negatived--yeas 14, nays
76.


THURSDAY, February 27.

Another member, to wit, JOHN SMITH, from New York, appeared, produced
his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

Mr. DAVIS said, as the House had yesterday thought proper to negative a
proposition to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the further
consideration of the business, and as one great motive for that motion
was the incompetency of evidence before the House, and as he knew it was
in the power of the House to procure that evidence by a proper
application, he hoped gentlemen would now indulge him in the adoption of
the following, which he moved, viz:

      _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this
      House a copy of the proceedings of the court held in the
      district of South Carolina, in the case of Thomas Nash,
      calling himself Jonathan Robbins.

Mr. BAYARD said, if he was persuaded, or if the gentleman could convince
him that there was any particular evidence in the hands of any officer
that would tend to throw such light as to give the least explanation to
the case, he certainly would be willing to accord with the resolution;
but he believed every necessary fact was before the House, and this had
been acknowledged by several gentlemen. If the object was to prove that
Nash was an American citizen, and that he was impressed, that could not
be necessary as it respected the resolutions of the gentleman from New
York, for that gentleman himself had acknowledged that he believed no
such thing, but that the whole claim was falsehood. Would the gentleman,
then, inform the House what point he wished to ascertain, or in what he
expected additional proof? He wished information, farther, who was the
"proper officer" to whom reference was expected to be made. There are
but two officers at all in view, one is the Secretary of State, the
other the District Judge of South Carolina; the gentleman could not
suppose that the Judge would be able to transmit the records of that
court previous to the adjournment of the House; and if it could be
obtained, no evidence to the point could be expected from him. If, on
the other hand, it was meant to call on the Secretary of State, it was
not to be expected, from the nature of the case, that any more documents
were in his hands than those already furnished; he had given copies of
the correspondence and requisition, which, it might be fairly inferred,
from the nature of his office, was all of which he could be possessed.
But if any gentleman doubted this fact, he could apply to the office of
the Secretary of State, from whom he could procure whatever was in his
possession.

If it was the intention of the House to close this very disagreeable
business in the present session, they must negative the resolution and
let the discussion go forward. The gentleman who brought forward the
resolution ought to have been provided with every document that was
necessary to support the charges, before he suffered them to appear.
However, he did not think but the gentleman who proposed the resolutions
thought his grounds were quite sufficient to support them.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he always believed that the testimony was incomplete,
but when he heard a gentleman get up and mention particular testimony
which he considered so important that without it he should not know how
to vote, whatever, Mr. N. said, might have been his former satisfaction
as to the establishment of the points, he certainly must now be inclined
to grant gentlemen every point of evidence that they should think
necessary, if within the reach of the House.

One particular piece of testimony had been mentioned, viz: that the man
had filed an affidavit that he was an American citizen and was impressed
on board a British man-of-war. Could any gentleman pretend to say that
no inference might be drawn from this source and the concomitant facts?
The gentleman from New York, to be sure, had declared his satisfaction
with the facts that had been produced to the House, but did the
gentleman from Delaware know that this was the case with any other
gentleman in the House? That gentleman's conclusions and impressions
were not to be taken as the opinions of others, nor were others obliged
to be satisfied because he was; and therefore to couple others in a
measure to which they were not privy, and to ascribe opinions to them
which they had not expressed, was at least unfair.

Mr. DANA thought this a most extraordinary resolution indeed? Was the
President of the United States the clerk of the court, to keep the
records of it? What had the President to do with the proceedings of that
court? It was certainly a total departure from all the forms of judicial
proceedings to suppose a thing of the kind. The gentlemen must certainly
have mistaken the situation held by the President, or they would never
have made such a vast departure from order and propriety of proceeding.
The President is not the public accuser; he is not to be called upon for
papers with which he has nothing to do. When he found gentlemen
outraging every thing that belonged to judicial propriety; when he found
them stumbling into error after error, and departing totally from all
jurisprudential propriety, Mr. D. said, he could not avoid rising to
oppose it.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said he did hope that this motion would not have been
brought forward; but as he meant to vote in favor of it, after having
declared his satisfaction with the documents, as sufficient to support
his resolutions, he should be accused of advocating a question of which
he had before spoken apparently differently, unless he should now give
his reasons; and lest he should be accused of a desire to keep alive a
calumny against the President of the United States, an effect which had
been stated, he took opportunity to answer the insinuation by saying
that he as much abhorred so mean a principle as any gentleman in the
House.

Mr. MARSHALL said, it was with no inconsiderable regret that he
perceived so much of the time of the House, which ought to be devoted to
more beneficial purposes, employed in preliminary discussion. He thought
that it was impossible the House could agree to a postponement, which
the motion under consideration must cause when it was reflected how much
time must be employed in procuring those papers--it could not take less
than a month; for they could only be found, he would presume to say in
the Court of the District of South Carolina: it was therefore scarcely
to be expected that they could be obtained until just before the rising
of the House, a period, if they arrived before the House rose, too late
for their consideration.

Mr. BAYARD said he could not distinguish between the present motion and
one yesterday negatived, because it must operate as a discharge upon the
Committee of the whole House. There could be no doubt but the Secretary
of State had furnished all the papers relative to the business in his
possession--indeed, he could assuredly say so. He said he held in his
hand a letter from the Secretary of State, in answer to one from an
honorable member of the House inquiring whether there were any more
documents in his office; he answered that he had no certified copy
whatever but those which he had furnished the President with, from whom
they came to the House. Gentlemen must then perceive that the mere
operation of this resolution was an absolute and inevitable postponement
of the business till another session. Many gentlemen, who were yesterday
ashamed to vote for a postponement, would now have a plausible cover for
their vote by calling for additional proof, to accomplish the object of
the resolution of yesterday; and thus he feared it would have many
advocates, but, however specious the pretext, he hoped it would not be
carried.

Mr. RUTLEDGE conceived this motion to be the same as to postpone the
business. Further information was wanted, and that information could
alone come from South Carolina. He wished the gentleman from Kentucky
would read the resolution before he pressed his motion: he would find
that the District Judge was not charged; no, it was only a charge
against the Executive; there was not a word of irregularity of
proceeding in the Court, but the Executive was seriously charged.

Mr. DAVIS explained. He said his objects were to have the record in
order to see whether Robbins did produce a certificate that he was an
American citizen; to see a copy of the warrant by which he was
committed; and thirdly, to know what stratagem or what proceedings were
used to take him out of the cognizance of the Court, where he must have
remained, if the President had not interfered. These things he wished to
ascertain, but that would be impossible without the court record.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, he conceived this to be the object, but he by no
means thought that the gentleman would be satisfied on these points,
were he to be possessed of the record. The gentleman might inquire the
reasons for the Executive and Judicial conduct being as it was, but
perhaps he would not receive the information. Every gentleman in the
House would unite their vote to procure all the testimony within their
reach, so as to enable the House to prosecute the business. We know,
said Mr. R., what monstrous clamor has been raised about this business;
we know that great pains have been taken to make the people believe that
their fellow-citizen has been torn from his country; that he has been
impressed into a foreign service; that the treaty has been violated;
that their fellow-citizen has been taken to a foreign country, and there
been tried in a summary manner and executed. We have been told for
months past that this business would be inquired into; we wish not to
avoid it; we will by all means in our power assist it; we have done it.
Some time since papers were asked for, we agreed with gentlemen that
they should be furnished; it was done, and they are now on your table.
They have been there many days; so that gentlemen had sufficient time,
long before this, to have known whether they were satisfied or not. The
gentleman himself who brought forward the resolutions affected to be
satisfied, but, in compliance with the wish of his friends, he now
wishes to postpone it. We want to bring the matter to a decision, and so
far as we can accommodate gentlemen and avoid delay we will do it.

Mr. NICHOLSON rose to correct what he considered a mistake in the
gentleman last up, (Mr. RUTLEDGE,) when he said that the Executive only
was implicated in the resolutions; he conceived that the District Judge
of South Carolina was implicated, and that the papers of that court were
necessary to examine the conduct of that judge. He read the resolution,
and contended that his deduction was accurate. Mr. N. said he wanted to
know whether the District Judge of South Carolina had committed this man
for trial; this would appear or be disproved by the warrant.

That the President of the United States was not to be considered as the
servant of that House, he was willing to admit, but he did not think
that the President might, with propriety, apply to the judge of the
district for the documents of the court; and he did not believe that the
President would object to make the application. However, the object he
presumed was to procure the papers, no matter from whom; that being the
object, he hoped the mover of the resolution would withdraw it, in order
to accommodate it more to the feelings of some members in the House, by
adopting something like the following:

      _Resolved_, That the Speaker of the House of
      Representatives be requested to procure, from the Clerk of
      the District Court of South Carolina, copies, under seal,
      of the proceedings of that court, together with the
      evidence produced in the case relative to the requisition
      for Thomas Nash, alias Jonathan Robbins, who was delivered
      to His Britannic Majesty's Consul.

Mr. DAVIS withdrew his resolution, and Mr. NICHOLAS moved the
substitute, which was now before the House.

Mr. HARPER moved a postponement of this resolution to this day week. The
object of the resolution which was before the Committee of the Whole was
twofold--a charge on the President, and a charge on the District Judge.
So much as related to the President of the United States, it was
manifest that the testimony called for by this resolution could have no
effect whatever upon him, because he left the whole to the judge. The
President went no further than to declare that if it should appear that
the acts committed by this man came within the purview of the British
Treaty, the man ought to be delivered up conformably to that
stipulation.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought, with the gentleman last up, that if the only
inquiry was as to the conduct of the President, or if the inquiry was
only to respect the judge, the papers might be dispensed with; but it
was otherwise--the conduct of both was called forth to view by the
resolutions, but how far the conduct of either may be reprehensible,
depended on the testimony which might appear before the House. It was
impossible to say what the President had done until the documents should
be seen. If gentlemen refused the inquiry being made of the court in
South Carolina, they, by that act, made the President answerable for
every part of the facts, which he believed they would not pretend to do.
He really believed it extremely important to know what steps had been
taken in this very serious business, to know whether the man was in
course for trial, and whether the President had acted in the hasty and
premature manner which was stated, in delivering him up.

Mr. GALLATIN could not help observing the disposition which gentlemen
evinced of placing the opinions and sensations expressed by one
gentleman to the account of others. To take a fair view of the
resolutions, what did they amount to? Nothing more than the deductions
which one man had drawn from the message sent to this House by the
Executive: these deductions, in the form of a resolution, he had
submitted to the consideration of the Committee of the Whole. Now,
except it could be proved that that gentleman had made all the
deductions of and acted for every gentleman, there could be no ground
for saying that every gentleman would be satisfied, without the evidence
which might be collected from the records of the District Court of South
Carolina. Was any gentleman in the House bound to be satisfied, with the
gentleman from New York, that all the facts necessary to be known were
furnished? Was every gentleman in the House bound to confine himself
solely to the resolutions before the House? Certainly not. It could not
be denied that the evidence now required was essential to a full
investigation of the conduct of the judge, who was the principal agent
of the Executive in this case.

Mr. H. LEE hoped that the gentleman from South Carolina would withdraw
his motion. He would mention some reasons which would induce him to vote
differently from gentlemen with whom he usually had the honor to vote.
Considering this a question of very great importance, not only to the
American people, and to the reputation of the House, but also to the
highly respectable character presiding over our Government, he trusted
the House would, in its whole process, be led by principles so fair and
candid, as not to leave the least room for a charge of derogation from
its own dignity or of the great subject it was discussing.

He would vote for the motion calling for the papers, but he would do it
with an expectation that it would not postpone the discussion of the
business so far as related to the conduct of the President of the United
States. It appeared that the conduct of the President, as charged, was
fully before the House; there could be no difficulty therefore to
proceed on it; but, as far as respected the judge, Mr. L. trusted the
record of the court would be sent, for he thought it but fair to gratify
gentlemen who considered there was any material evidence wanting.

Mr. VARNUM would vote for the resolution proposed; he thought it was
doubtful whether the President had acted with propriety or not; but he
believed if there had been any incidental impropriety of conduct, it was
never done with an evil design, nor with a view to interfere with any
other department of the Government; but certainly to deny this evidence,
which several gentlemen had stated to be necessary to assist them in
making up their minds, would stamp a censure on the conduct of those
officers as great as that contained in the resolution. He thought the
gentleman from New York had a right to bring the subject to the view of
the House. If he saw any proceeding which to him appeared dangerous, it
was his duty to commence an investigation. No man ought to flinch from
what he thought right. The only way to give public satisfaction, in a
matter that had so much engaged public attention, was to give all the
evidence which could be procured, and let the matter be investigated to
the bottom; and, most assuredly, the only way effectually to clear the
characters implicated, if they were innocent, was to leave no doubt as
to the desire of the House to scrutinize their conduct. But, certainly,
the very great reluctance which gentlemen showed to procure all the
evidence, and, after all, their denial of it, must leave a suspicion
bordering much on guilt.

Mr. BAYARD rose, in answer to Mr. GALLATIN and others, and observed,
that, with respect to Nash calling himself an American citizen before
that court, (an object which it was desired to prove by this call for
evidence,) they were asked to admit the fact. Mr. B. asked, would these
gentlemen admit that Nash was guilty of the dreadful murders committed
on board the British frigate? Would they admit that he falsely made the
claim? However, he had no disposition to rest on that point. Another
fact, however, which it was required to admit was as to the jurisdiction
of the court of the United States upon the case. Mr. B. denied this, and
repeated the former arguments in proof of his opinion. He insisted that
the whole arrest and proceeding was had at the instance of the British
Consul and Minister, in proof of which he quoted their letters. The
record, he said, could not possibly dispense any light to this fact; the
record would only give the warrant and some of the depositions first
taken before the judge; but as to the court being designated where the
case was to be tried, he contended that it was not usual to insert it in
the warrant--he never saw one so drawn. It was possible that Nash was
committed with a view to be delivered up to the British, before the
letter was received by the judge from the President; and it was very
reasonable that the whole previous business was at the instigation of
the British agent, but it was impossible to prove that jurisdiction had
attached before the letter directing the delivery to be made was
received.

Mr. JONES said, that finding himself, from the vote he was about to
give, implicated in the charge made by the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr.
BAYARD,) that gentlemen who were yesterday ashamed to vote for the
proposition to discharge the committee from further consideration of the
subject, in general and express terms, because it would imply a distrust
of the sufficiency of the ground on which to support the principles of
the resolutions, were now disposed to effect the same object by a
decision which would, in fact, go to evade the question during the
present session, he felt himself impelled, by a respect for his own
conduct, to explain the motives which would govern his vote on the
present question. He considered the case which had been called into view
by the proposition of the gentleman from New York, (Mr. LIVINGSTON,) as
one that involved in it the dearest interests and deepest concerns of
the people of the United States. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
BAYARD) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. DANA) had indulged
themselves in the most violent invectives and unnecessary abuse against
the unfortunate, the obscure, and insignificant character, now dead, who
was the subject of this proposition. On this topic they had exercised
all their powers of passionate declamation. If this was a grateful theme
for the employment of their talents, he did not envy them the enjoyment
of it. How that kind of argument would apply to the question, he left to
the House to determine.

For his part, Mr. J. said, he deemed it totally immaterial whether the
man was, as they had declared, an Irishman or not; whether he was a
Turk, a Hottentot, or a native-born American, if he claimed to be an
American citizen, and produced a certificate in due form, under the
signature of a proper officer, of his citizenship, and that claim was
slighted by the judge, or declared immaterial, and the fact not inquired
into of his being a citizen, then he conceived the safety of the
citizens of America to be equally put in jeopardy, as if the man had
been born and raised in Charleston, in the circle of the judge's own
acquaintance. If, he asked, a dagger aimed at my breast by an assassin
in the dark, should by mistake or impetuosity pierce the bosom of
another, would not the discovery of such an attempt awaken alarm, and
demand a precaution for my future safety? Certainly it would. So in this
case, if this man claimed to be a citizen, and wore about him the legal
voucher of that claim, and if he was told in the presence of American
citizens, "it is of no importance whether you are, or are not a citizen,
that is a point of no concern in the case," notwithstanding it may
afterwards be found he was no citizen, yet would it equally involve the
safety of every true citizen who might fall into similar circumstances.
We may congratulate ourselves that it has not fallen on a
fellow-citizen, but we ought still to improve the lesson this case has
presented. Mr. J. hoped that it would be improved, and that, at least,
legislative provisions would be made to prevent this decision from
operating on a citizen, if such a case should occur in future.

The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. HARPER, to postpone the
consideration of the motion of Mr. NICHOLSON, for a call of the record
of the District Court of South Carolina, for one week, and
negatived--yeas 32, nays 63.

The question then recurred upon adopting the resolutions.

Mr. MARSHALL spoke at length against it. He contended there was no
prospect of coming to a decision of the original question this session,
if this were adopted; and asked if the character of the President of the
United States ought to be held up in the suspicious view in which the
resolution placed it, until the next session of Congress? He hoped not.
It seemed to him that a postponement amounted to a declaration to the
people of America that there was much cause for suspicion, and that
additional evidences were wanted to substantiate it.

Mr. NICHOLAS replied to Mr. M., and contended that the whole truth of
the case was to come out of the additional testimony now asked for.

An adjournment was then called for, and negatived--yeas 30.

Mr. RANDOLPH spoke in favor of the resolution, and in answer to Mr.
MARSHALL.

The question was then taken that the House do agree to the motion first
proposed, and passed in the negative--yeas 44, nays 57.

And then the House adjourned.


FRIDAY, February 28.

Mr. HARPER moved a postponement of the order of the day on the business
of Jonathan Robbins, until Monday. He did not conceive much progress
would be made this day, and as there was much private business on hand
it could not be gone through with. If the business be taken up on Monday
it can be regularly gone through with without intermission.

The motion was agreed to.


MONDAY, March 3.

_Lake Superior Lands._

Mr. COOPER observed that a navy was considered an object of great
importance, as was also our extended commerce, and neither of these
could be carried on to any profit without a very liberal use of copper.
That article could not be purchased at present at less than half a
dollar a pound, but by attention to an object which was within our own
power it might be had at a very low price. From these considerations he
laid on the table the following resolution:

      _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a
      bill authorizing the President of the United States to
      appoint an agent to purchase of the Indians that tract of
      land on the south side of Lake Superior, which shall
      include the great copper bed.

Mr. C. said, as this invaluable copper mine was well known by
individuals, it no doubt would soon become an object of speculation, but
wishing to make it of public utility, as it must become if purchased, he
hoped the proposition would be adopted.

_Jonathan Robbins._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
Message of the President respecting Jonathan Robbins, when Mr.
LIVINGSTON spoke about three hours in support of the resolutions he some
time since submitted to the House on that subject.

Mr. BAYARD was proceeding to follow Mr. L. when a member moved the
committee to rise and ask leave to sit again. Mr. B. objected: he said
he was prepared to proceed if the House would have patience at that late
hour to hear him. Several members expressed a desire that he might
proceed, which he was doing, when the SPEAKER hoped the gentleman would
give way to a motion for the committee to rise; he had no doubt of his
friend being prepared for the discussion, but from the length the answer
must necessarily take, the House certainly would be fatigued much before
he would conclude. The motion was made and carried.

During Mr. LIVINGSTON'S observations he introduced a copy of the record
of the Circuit Court in New Jersey, where three men were tried and
acquitted on the charge of piracy, and one of them for murder, on board
of the same frigate and at the same time. This record, on motion of Mr.
RUTLEDGE, was ordered to be printed.

Mr. NICHOLAS, not being able to account to his satisfaction for the
obvious change of conduct in our Executive in this recited instance and
the one now under the consideration of the House (though precisely the
same in facts) any other way than by supposing that a correspondence on
the subject had occurred between the Executive of the United States and
the British Government; though he expressed himself to be extremely
unwilling, yet he thought it his duty to move that the President be
requested to furnish it to the House.

An adjournment was immediately called and carried.


WEDNESDAY, March 5.

The House then resolved itself into a committee on the Message, when Mr.
BAYARD proceeded, in answer to Mr. LIVINGSTON, in which he spoke about
three hours.[50] The committee then rose, and obtained leave to sit
again.


THURSDAY, March 6.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate had passed
the bill, entitled "An act declaring the assent of Congress to certain
acts of the States of Maryland and Georgia," with an amendment; to which
they desire the concurrence of this House.

_Jonathan Robbins._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the Message of the
PRESIDENT, in the case of Jonathan Robbins, when Mr. NICHOLAS spoke
about three hours[51] in favor of the resolutions introduced by Mr.
LIVINGSTON, which were negatived--yeas 34, nays 58.

Some discussion then took place on taking up the resolution presented by
Mr. BAYARD, which was also with the Committee of the whole House. The
committee at length rose without entering upon it, and reported their
disagreement to the resolutions proposed by Mr. LIVINGSTON; and the
question whether the committee should have leave to sit again was taken
by yeas and nays, and carried--yeas 59, nays 38.

The question was then before the House to agree to the report of the
committee in their disagreement with the resolutions.

Mr. GALLATIN rose, and entered generally into the argument, in a speech
of about two hours, after which the House adjourned.[52]


FRIDAY, March 7.

_Jonathan Robbins._

The House took up the unfinished business of yesterday, and the
question, Will the House agree with the Committee of the Whole in their
disagreement to Mr. LIVINGSTON'S resolutions? being under consideration,

Mr. MARSHALL said, that believing, as he did most seriously, that in a
Government constituted like that of the United States, much of the
public happiness depended, not only on its being rightly administered,
but on the measures of Administration being rightly understood--on
rescuing public opinion from those numerous prejudices with which so
many causes might combine to surround it, he could not but have been
highly gratified with the very eloquent, and what was still more
valuable, the very able and very correct argument which had been
delivered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD) against the
resolutions now under consideration. He had not expected that the effect
of this argument would be universal; but he had cherished the hope, and
in this he had not been disappointed, that it would be very extensive.
He did not flatter himself with being able to shed much new light on the
subject; but, as the argument in opposition to the resolutions had been
assailed with considerable ability by gentlemen of great talents, he
trusted the House would not think the time misapplied which would be
devoted to the re-establishment of the principles contained in that
argument, and to the refutation of those advanced in opposition to it.
In endeavoring to do this, he should notice the observations in support
of the resolutions, not in the precise order in which they were made;
but as they applied to the different points he deemed it necessary to
maintain, in order to demonstrate, that the conduct of the Executive of
the United States could not justly be charged with the errors imputed to
it by the resolutions.

His first proposition, he said, was that the case of Thomas Nash, as
stated to the President, was completely within the 27th article of the
Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, entered into between the
United States of America and Great Britain.

He read the article, and then observed: The _casus foederis_ of this
article occurs, when a person, having committed murder or forgery within
the jurisdiction of one of the contracting parties, and having sought an
asylum in the country of the other, is charged with the crime, and his
delivery demanded, on such proof of his guilt as, according to the laws
of the place where he shall be found, would justify his apprehension and
commitment for trial, if the offence had there been committed.

The case stated is, that Thomas Nash, having committed murder on board
of a British frigate, navigating the high seas under a commission from
His Britannic Majesty, had sought an asylum within the United States; on
this case his delivery was demanded by the Minister of the King of Great
Britain.

It is manifest that the case stated, if supported by proof, is within
the letter of the article, provided a murder committed in a British
frigate, on the high seas, be committed within the jurisdiction of that
nation. That such a murder is within their jurisdiction, has been fully
shown by the gentleman from Delaware. The principle is, that the
jurisdiction of a nation extends to the whole of its territory, and to
its own citizens in every part of the world. The laws of a nation are
rightfully obligatory on its own citizens in every situation where those
laws are really extended to them. This principle is founded on the
nature of civil union. It is supported every where by public opinion,
and is recognized by writers on the laws of nations. _Rutherforth_, in
his second volume, page 180, says: "The jurisdiction which a civil
society has over the persons of its members, affects them immediately,
whether they are within its territories or not."

This general principle is especially true, and is particularly
recognized, with respect to the fleets of a nation on the high seas. To
punish offences committed in its fleets, is the practice of every nation
in the universe; and consequently the opinion of the world is, that a
fleet at sea is within the jurisdiction of the nation to which it
belongs. _Rutherforth_, vol. ii. p. 491, says: "there can be no doubt
about the jurisdiction of a nation over the persons which compose its
fleets, when they are out at sea, whether they are sailing upon it or
are stationed in any particular part of it."

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GALLATIN,) though he has not
directly controverted this doctrine, has sought to weaken it by
observing that the jurisdiction of a nation at sea could not be complete
even in its own vessels; and in support of this position he urged the
admitted practice of submitting to search for contraband--a practice not
tolerated on land, within the territory of a neutral power. The rule is
as stated; but is founded on a principle which does not affect the
jurisdiction of a nation over its citizens or subjects in its ships. The
principle is, that in the sea itself no nation has any jurisdiction. All
may equally exercise their rights, and consequently the right of a
belligerent power to prevent aid being given to his enemy, is not
restrained by any superior right of a neutral in the place. But, if this
argument possessed any force, it would not apply to national
ships-of-war, since the usage of nations does not permit them to be
searched.

According to the practice of the world, then, and the opinions of
writers on the law of nations, the murder committed on board the British
frigate navigating the high seas, was a murder committed within the
jurisdiction of the British nation.

Although such a murder is plainly within the letter of the article, it
has been contended not to be within its just construction; because at
sea all nations have a common jurisdiction, and the article correctly
construed, will not embrace a case of concurrent jurisdiction.

It is deemed unnecessary to controvert this construction, because the
proposition, that the United States had no jurisdiction over the murder
committed by Thomas Nash, is believed to be completely demonstrable.

It is not true that all nations have jurisdiction over all offences
committed at sea. On the contrary, no nation has any jurisdiction at
sea, but over its own citizens or vessels, or offences against itself.
This principle is laid down in 2 _Ruth._ 488, 491.

The American Government has, on a very solemn occasion, avowed the same
principle. The first Minister of the French Republic asserted and
exercised powers of so extraordinary a nature, as unavoidably to produce
a controversy with the United States. The situation in which the
Government then found itself was such as necessarily to occasion a very
serious and mature consideration of the opinions it should adopt. Of
consequence, the opinions then declared deserve great respect. In the
case alluded to, Mr. Genet had asserted the right of fitting out
privateers in the American ports, and of manning them with American
citizens, in order to cruise against nations with whom America was at
peace. In reasoning against this extravagant claim, the then Secretary
of State, in his letter of the 17th of June, 1793, says:

      "For our citizens then to commit murders and depredations
      on the members of nations at peace with us, or to combine
      to do it, appeared to the Executive, and to those whom they
      consulted, as much against the laws of the land as to
      murder or rob, or combine to murder or rob its own
      citizens; and as much to require punishment, if done within
      their limits, where they have a territorial jurisdiction,
      or on the high seas, where they have a personal
      jurisdiction, that is to say, one which reaches their own
      citizens only; this being an appropriate part of each
      nation, on an element where all have a common
      jurisdiction."

The well considered opinion, then, of the American Government on this
subject is, that the jurisdiction of a nation at sea is "personal,"
reaching its "own citizens only;" and that this is the "appropriate part
of each nation" on that element.

This is precisely the opinion maintained by the opposers of the
resolutions. If the jurisdiction of America at sea be personal, reaching
its own citizens only; if this be its appropriate part, then the
jurisdiction of the nation cannot extend to a murder committed by a
British sailor, on board a British frigate navigating the high seas
under a commission from His Britannic Majesty.

As a further illustration of the principle contended for, suppose a
contract made at sea, and a suit instituted for the recovery of money
which might be due thereon. By the laws of what nation would the
contract be governed? The principle is general that a personal contract
follows the person, but is governed by the law of the place where it is
formed. By what law then would such a contract be governed? If all
nations had jurisdiction over the place, then the laws of all nations
would equally influence the contract; but certainly no man will hesitate
to admit that such a contract ought to be decided according to the laws
of that nation to which the vessel or contracting parties might belong.

Suppose a duel, attended with death, in the fleet of a foreign nation,
or in any vessel which returned safe to port, could it be pretended that
any government on earth, other than that to which the fleet or vessel
belonged, had jurisdiction in the case; or that the offender could be
tried by the laws or tribunals of any other nation whatever?

Suppose a private theft by one mariner, from another, and the vessel to
perform its voyage and return in safety, would it be contended that all
nations have equal cognizance of the crime, and are equally authorized
to punish it?

If there be this common jurisdiction at sea, why not punish desertion
from one belligerent power to another, or correspondence with the enemy,
or any other crime which may be perpetrated? A common jurisdiction over
all offences at sea, in whatever vessel committed, would involve the
power of punishing the offences which have been stated. Yet all
gentlemen will disclaim this power. It follows, then, that no such
common jurisdiction exists.

In truth the right of every nation to punish is limited, in its nature,
to offences against the nation inflicting the punishment. This principle
is believed to be universally true. It comprehends every possible
violation of its laws on its own territory, and it extends to violations
committed elsewhere by persons it has a right to bind. It extends also
to general piracy.

A pirate, under the law of nations, is an enemy of the human race. Being
the enemy of all, he is liable to be punished by all. Any act which
denotes this universal hostility, is an act of piracy.

Not only an actual robbery, therefore, but cruising on the high seas
without commission, and with intent to rob, is piracy. This is an
offence against all and every nation, and is therefore alike punishable
by all. But an offence which in its nature affects only a particular
nation, is only punishable by that nation.

It is by confounding general piracy with piracy by statute, that
indistinct ideas have been produced, respecting the power to punish
offences committed on the high seas.

A statute may make any offence piracy, committed within the jurisdiction
of the nation passing the statute, and such offence will be punishable
by that nation. But piracy under the law of nations, which alone is
punishable by all nations, can only consist in an act which is an
offence against all. No particular nation can increase or diminish the
list of offences thus punishable.

It has been observed by his colleague, (Mr. NICHOLAS,) for the purpose
of showing that the distinction taken on this subject by the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD) was inaccurate, that any vessel robbed on the
high seas could be the property only of a single nation, and being only
an offence against that nation, could be, on the principle taken by the
opposers of the resolutions, no offence against the law of nations; but
in this his colleague had not accurately considered the principle. As a
man who turns out to rob on the highway, and forces from a stranger his
purse with a pistol at his bosom, is not the particular enemy of that
stranger, but alike the enemy of every man who carries a purse, so those
who without a commission rob on the high seas, manifest a temper hostile
to all nations, and therefore become the enemies of all. The same
inducements which occasion the robbery of one vessel, exist to occasion
the robbery of others, and therefore the single offence is an offence
against the whole community of nations, manifests a temper hostile to
all, is the commencement of an attack on all, and is consequently, of
right, punishable by all.

His colleague had also contended that all the offences at sea,
punishable by the British statutes from which the act of Congress was in
a great degree copied, were piracies at common law, or by the law of
nations, and as murder is among these, consequently murder was an act
of piracy by the law of nations, and therefore punishable by every
nation. In support of this position he had cited 1 _Hawk. P. C._ 267.
271-3, _Inst._ 112, and 1 _Woodeson_, 140.

The amount of these cases is, that no new offence is made piracy by the
statutes; but that a different tribunal is created for their trial,
which is guided by a different rule from that which governed previous to
those statutes. Therefore, on an indictment for piracy, it is still
necessary to prove an offence which was piracy before the statutes. He
drew from these authorities a very different conclusion from that which
had been drawn by his colleague. To show the correctness of his
conclusion, it was necessary to observe, that the statute did not indeed
change the nature of piracy, since it only transferred the trial of the
crime to a different tribunal, where different rules of decision
prevailed; but having done this, other crimes committed on the high
seas, which were not piracy, were made punishable by the same tribunal;
but certainly this municipal regulation could not be considered as
proving that those offences were, before, piracy by the law of nations.
[Mr. NICHOLAS insisted that the law was not correctly stated, whereupon
Mr. MARSHALL called for 3 _Inst._ and read the statute:]

      "All treasons, felonies, robberies, murders, and
      confederacies, committed in or upon the seas, &c., shall be
      inquired, tried, heard, determined and judged in such
      shires, &c., in like form and condition as if any such
      offence had been committed on the land," &c. "And such as
      shall be convicted, &c., shall have and suffer such pains
      of death, &c., as if they had been attainted of any
      treason, felony, robbery, or other the said offences done
      upon the land."

This statute, it is certain, does not change the nature of piracy; but
all treasons, felonies, robberies, murders, and confederacies, committed
in or upon the sea, are not declared to have been, nor are they
piracies. If a man be indicted as a pirate, the offence must be shown to
have been piracy before the statute; but if he be indicted for treason,
felony, robbery, murder, or confederacy, committed at sea, whether such
offence was or was not a piracy, he shall be punished in like manner as
if he had committed the same offence on land. The passage cited from 1
_Woodeson_, 140, is a full authority to this point. Having stated that
offences committed at sea were formerly triable before the Lord High
Admiral, according to the course of the Roman civil law, _Woodeson_
says:

      "But, by the statutes 27 H. 8. c. 4, and 28 H. 8. c. 15,
      all treasons, felonies, piracies, and other crimes
      committed on the sea, or where the admiral has
      jurisdiction, shall be tried in the realm as if done on
      land. But the statutes referred to affect only the manner
      of the trial as far as respects piracy. The nature of the
      offence is not changed. Whether a charge amount to piracy
      or not, must still depend on the law of nations, except
      where, in the case of British subjects, express acts of
      Parliament have declared that the crimes therein specified
      shall be adjudged piracy, or shall be liable to the same
      mode of trial and degree of punishment."

This passage proves not only that all offences at sea are not piracies
by the law of nations, but also that all indictments for piracy must
depend on the law of nations, "except where, in the case of British
subjects, express acts of Parliament" have changed the law. Why do not
these "express acts of Parliament" change the law as to others than
"British subjects?" The words are general, "all treasons, felonies, &c."
Why are they confined in construction to British subjects? The answer is
a plain one: The jurisdiction of the nation is confined to its territory
and to its own subjects.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) abandons, and very
properly abandons, this untenable ground. He admits that no nation has a
right to punish offences against another nation, and that the United
States can only punish offences against their own laws and the law of
nations. He admits, too, that if there had only been a mutiny (and
consequently if there had only been a murder) on board the Hermione,
that the American courts could have taken no cognizance of the crime.
Yet mutiny is punishable as piracy by the law of both nations. That
gentleman contends that the act committed by Nash was piracy, according
to the law of nations. He supports his position by insisting that the
offence may be constituted by the commission of a single act: that
unauthorized robbery on the high seas is this act, and that the crew
having seized the vessel, and being out of the protection of any nation,
were pirates.

It is true that the offence may be completed by a single act; but it
depends on the nature of that act. If it be such as manifests generally
hostility against the world--an intention to rob generally, then it is
piracy; but if it be merely a mutiny and murder in a vessel, for the
purpose of delivering it up to the enemy, it seems to be an offence
against a single nation and not to be piracy. The sole object of the
crew might be to go over to the enemy, or to free themselves from the
tyranny experienced on board a ship-of-war, and not to rob generally.

But, should it even be true that running away with a vessel to deliver
her up to an enemy was an act of general piracy, punishable by all
nations, yet the mutiny and murder was a distinct offence. Had the
attempt to seize the vessel failed, after the commission of the murder,
then, according to the argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the
American courts could have taken no cognizance of the crime. Whatever
then might have been the law respecting the piracy, of the murder there
was no jurisdiction. For the murder, not the piracy, Nash was delivered
up. Murder, and not piracy, is comprehended in the 27th article of the
treaty between the two nations. Had he been tried then and acquitted on
an indictment for the piracy, he must still have been delivered up for
the murder, of which the court could have no jurisdiction. It is certain
that an acquittal of the piracy would not have discharged the murder;
and, therefore, in the so much relied on trials at Trenton, a separate
indictment for murder was filed after an indictment for piracy. Since,
then, if acquitted for piracy, he must have been delivered to the
British Government on the charge of murder, the President of the United
States might, very properly, without prosecuting for the piracy, direct
him to be delivered up on the murder.

All the gentlemen who have spoken in support of the resolutions, have
contended that the case of Thomas Nash is within the purview of the act
of Congress, which relates to this subject, and is by that act made
punishable in the American courts. That is, that the act of Congress
designed to punish crimes committed on board a British frigate. Nothing
can be more completely demonstrable than the untruth of this
proposition.

It has already been shown that the legislative jurisdiction of a nation
extends only to its own territory, and to its own citizens, wherever
they may be. Any general expression in a legislative act must,
necessarily, be restrained to objects within the jurisdiction of the
Legislature passing the act. Of consequence an act of Congress can only
be construed to apply to the territory of the United States,
comprehending every person within it, and to the citizens of the United
States.

But, independent of this undeniable truth, the act itself affords
complete testimony of its intention and extent. (_See Laws of the United
States_, vol. i. p. 10.) The title is: "An act for the punishment of
certain crimes against the United States." Not against Britain, France,
or the world, but singly "against the United States."

The first section relates to treason, and its objects are, "any person
or persons owing allegiance to the United States." This description
comprehends only the citizens of the United States, and such others as
may be on its territory or in its service.

The second section relates to misprision of treason; and declares,
without limitation, that any person or persons, having knowledge of any
treason, and not communicating the same, shall be guilty of that crime.
Here then is an instance of that limited description of persons in one
section, and of that general description in another, which has been
relied on to support the construction contended for by the friends of
the resolutions. But will it be pretended that a person can commit
misprision of treason who cannot commit treason itself? That he would be
punishable for concealing a treason who could not be punished for
plotting it? Or, can it be supposed that the act designed to punish an
Englishman or a Frenchman, who, residing in his own country, should have
knowledge of treasons against the United States, and should not cross
the Atlantic to reveal them?

The same observations apply to the sixth section, which makes any
"person or persons" guilty of misprision of felony, who, having
knowledge of murder or other offences enumerated in that section, should
conceal them. It is impossible to apply this to a foreigner, in a
foreign land, or to any person not owing allegiance to the United
States.

The eighth section, which is supposed to comprehend the case, after
declaring that if any "person or persons" shall commit murder on the
high seas, he shall be punishable with death, proceeds to say, that if
any captain or mariner shall piratically run away with a ship or vessel,
or yield her up voluntarily to a pirate, or if any seaman shall lay
violent hands on his commander, to prevent his fighting, or shall make a
revolt in the ship, every such offender shall be adjudged a pirate and a
felon.

The persons who are the objects of this section of the act are all
described in general terms, which might embrace the subjects of all
nations. But is it to be supposed that, if in an engagement between an
English and a French ship-of-war, the crew of the one or the other
should lay violent hands on the captain and force him to strike, that
this would be an offence against the act of Congress, punishable in the
courts of the United States? On this extended construction of the
general terms of the section, not only the crew of one of the foreign
vessels forcing their captain to surrender to another, would incur the
penalties of the act, but, if in the late action between the gallant
Truxton and the French frigate, the crew of that frigate had compelled
the captain to surrender, while he was unwilling to do so, they would
have been indictable as felons in the courts of the United States. But
surely the act of Congress admits of no such extravagant construction.

His colleague, Mr. M. said, had cited and particularly relied on the
ninth section of the act; that section declares, that if a citizen shall
commit any of the enumerated piracies, or any acts of hostility, on the
high seas, against the United States, under color of a commission from
any foreign Prince or State, he shall be adjudged a pirate, felon, and
robber, and shall suffer death.

This section is only a positive extension of the act to a case which
might otherwise have escaped punishment. It takes away the protection of
a foreign commission from an American citizen, who, on the high seas,
robs his countrymen. This is no exception from any preceding part of the
law, because there is no part which relates to the conduct of vessels
commissioned by a foreign power; it only proves that, in the opinion of
the Legislature, the penalties of the act could not, without this
express provision, have been incurred by a citizen holding a foreign
commission.

It is most certain, then, that the act of Congress does not comprehend
the case of a murder committed on board a foreign ship-of-war.

The gentleman from New York has cited 2 _Woodeson_, 428, to show that
the courts of England extend their jurisdiction to piracies committed by
the subjects of foreign nations.

This has not been doubted. The case from Woodeson is a case of robberies
committed on the high seas by a vessel without authority. There are
ordinary acts of piracy which, as has been already stated, being
offences against all nations, are punishable by all. The case from 2
_Woodeson_, and the note cited from the same book by the gentleman from
Delaware, are strong authorities against the doctrines contended for by
the friends of the resolutions.

It has also been contended that the question of jurisdiction was decided
at Trenton, by receiving indictments against persons there arraigned for
the same offence, and by retaining them for trial after the return of
the habeas corpus.

Every person in the slightest degree acquainted with judicial
proceedings, knows that an indictment is no evidence of jurisdiction;
and that, in criminal cases, the question of jurisdiction will seldom be
made but by arrest of judgment after conviction.

The proceedings, after the return of the habeas corpus, only prove that
the case was not such a case as to induce the Judge immediately to
decide against his jurisdiction. The question was not free from doubt,
and, therefore, might very properly be postponed until its decision
should become necessary.

It has been argued by the gentleman from New York, that the form of the
indictment is, itself, evidence of a power in the court to try the case.
Every word of that indictment, said the gentleman, gives the lie to a
denial of the jurisdiction of the court.

It would be assuming a very extraordinary principle, indeed, to say that
words inserted in an indictment for the express purpose of assuming the
jurisdiction of a court, should be admitted to prove that jurisdiction.
The question certainly depended on the nature of the fact, and not on
the description of the fact. But as an indictment must necessarily
contain formal words in order to be supported, and as forms often denote
what a case must substantially be to authorize a court to take
cognizance of it, some words in the indictments at Trenton ought to be
noticed. The indictments charge the persons to have been within the
peace, and murder to have been committed against the peace, of the
United States. These are necessary averments, and, to give the court
jurisdiction, the fact ought to have accorded with them. But who will
say that the crew of a British frigate on the high seas, are within the
peace of the United States? or a murder committed on board such a
frigate, against the peace of any other than the British Government?

It is, then, demonstrated that the murder with which Thomas Nash was
charged, was not committed within the jurisdiction of the United States,
and, consequently, that the case stated was completely within the letter
and the spirit of the twenty-seventh article of the treaty between the
two nations. If the necessary evidence was produced, he ought to have
been delivered up to justice. It was an act to which the American nation
was bound by a most solemn compact. To have tried him for the murder
would have been mere mockery. To have condemned and executed him, the
court having no jurisdiction, would have been murder. To have acquitted
and discharged him would have been a breach of faith, and a violation of
national duty.

But it has been contended that, although Thomas Nash ought to have been
delivered up to the British Minister, on the requisition made by him in
the name of his Government, yet, the interference of the President was
improper.

This, Mr. M. said, led to his second proposition, which was:

That the case was a case for Executive and not Judicial decision. He
admitted implicitly the division of powers, stated by the gentleman from
New York, and that it was the duty of each department to resist the
encroachments of the others.

This being established, the inquiry was, to what department was the
power in question allotted?

The gentleman from New York had relied on the second section of the
third article of the constitution, which enumerates the cases to which
the Judicial power of the United States extends, as expressly including
that now under consideration. Before he examined that section, it would
not be improper to notice a very material misstatement of it made in the
resolutions, offered by the gentleman from New York. By the
constitution, the Judicial power of the United States is extended to all
cases in law and equity, arising under the constitution, laws, and
treaties of the United States; but the resolutions declare that Judicial
power to extend to all questions arising under the constitution,
treaties, and laws of the United States. The difference between the
constitution and resolutions was material and apparent. A case in law or
equity was a term well understood, and of limited signification. It was
a controversy between parties which had taken a shape for judicial
decision. If the Judicial power extended to every question under the
constitution, it would involve almost every subject proper for
Legislative discussion and decision; if, to every question under the
laws and treaties of the United States, it would involve almost every
subject on which the Executive could act. The division of power which
the gentleman had stated, could exist no longer, and the other
departments would be swallowed up by the Judiciary. But it was apparent
that the resolutions had essentially misrepresented the constitution. He
did not charge the gentleman from New York with intentional
misrepresentation; he would not attribute to him such an artifice in any
case, much less in a case where detection was so easy and so certain.
Yet this substantial departure from the constitution, in resolutions
affecting substantially to unite it, was not less worthy of remark for
being unintentional. It manifested the course of reasoning by which the
gentleman had himself been misled, and his judgment betrayed into the
opinions those resolutions expressed. By extending the Judicial power to
all cases in law and equity, the constitution had never been understood
to confer on that department any political power whatever. To come
within this description, a question must assume a legal form for
forensic litigation and judicial decision. There must be parties to come
into court, who can be reached by its process, and bound by its power;
whose rights admit of ultimate decision by a tribunal to which they are
bound to submit.

A case in law or equity proper for judicial decision may arise under a
treaty, where the rights of individuals acquired or secured by a treaty
are to be asserted or defended in court. As under the fourth or sixth
article of the treaty of peace with Great Britain, or under those
articles of our late treaties with France, Prussia, and other nations,
which secure to the subjects of those nations their property within the
United States; or, as would be an article, which, instead of stipulating
to deliver up an offender, should stipulate his punishment, provided the
case was punishable by the laws and in the courts of the United States.
But the Judicial power cannot extend to political compacts; as the
establishment of the boundary line between the American and British
dominions; the case of the late guarantee in our treaty with France, or
the case of the delivery of a murderer under the twenty-seventh article
of our present treaty with Britain.

The gentleman from New York has asked, triumphantly asked, what power
exists in our courts to deliver up an individual to a foreign
Government? Permit me, said Mr. M., but not triumphantly, to retort the
question. By what authority can any court render such a judgment? What
power does a court possess to seize any individual and determine that he
shall be adjudged by a foreign tribunal? Surely our courts possess no
such power, yet they must possess it, if this article of the treaty is
to be executed by the courts.

Gentlemen have cited and relied on that clause in the constitution,
which enables Congress to define and punish piracies and felonies
committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations;
together with an act of Congress declaring the punishment of those
offences; as transferring the whole subject to the courts. But that
clause can never be construed to make to the Government a grant of
power, which the people making it do not themselves possess. It has
already been shown that the people of the United States have no
jurisdiction over offences committed on board a foreign ship against a
foreign nation. Of consequence, in framing a Government for themselves,
they cannot have passed this jurisdiction to that Government. The law,
therefore, cannot act upon the case. But this clause of the
constitution cannot be considered, and need not be considered, as
affecting acts which are piracy under the law of nations. As the
judicial power of the United States extends to all cases of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction, and piracy under the law of nations is of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, punishable by every nation, the
judicial power of the United States of course extends to it. On this
principle the Courts of Admiralty under the Confederation took
cognizance of piracy, although there was no express power in Congress to
define and punish the offence.

But the extension of the judicial power of the United States to all
cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction must necessarily be
understood with some limitation. All cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction which, from their nature, are triable in the United States,
are submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.

There are cases of piracy by the law of nations, and cases within the
legislative jurisdiction of the nation; the people of America possessed
no other power over the subject, and could consequently transfer no
other to their courts; and it has already been proved that a murder
committed on board a foreign ship-of-war is not comprehended within this
description.

The Consular Convention with France, has also been relied on, as proving
the act of delivering up an individual to a foreign power to be in its
nature Judicial and not Executive.

The ninth article of that Convention authorizes the Consuls and Vice
Consuls of either nation to cause to be arrested all deserters from
their vessel, "for which purpose the said Consuls and Vice Consuls shall
address themselves to the courts, judges, and officers competent."

This article of the Convention does not, like the 27th article of the
treaty with Britain, stipulate a national act, to be performed on the
demand of a nation; it only authorizes a foreign Minister to cause an
act to be done, and prescribes the course he is to pursue. The contract
itself is, that the act shall be performed by the agency of the foreign
Consul, through the medium of the courts; but this affords no evidence
that a contract of a very different nature is to be performed in the
same manner.

It is said that the then President of the United States declared the
incompetency of the courts, judges, and officers, to execute this
contract without an act of the Legislature. But the then President made
no such declaration.

He has said that some legislative provision is requisite to carry the
stipulations of the Convention into full effect. This, however, is by no
means declaring the incompetency of a department to perform an act
stipulated by treaty, until the legislative authority shall direct its
performance.

It has been contended that the conduct of the Executive on former
occasions, similar to this in principle, has been such as to evince an
opinion, even in that department, that the case in question is proper
for the decision of the courts.

The fact adduced to support this argument is the determination of the
late President on the case of prizes made within the jurisdiction of the
United States, or by privateers fitted out in their ports.

The nation was bound to deliver up those prizes in like manner as the
nation is now bound to deliver up an individual demanded under the 27th
article of the treaty with Britain. The duty was the same, and devolved
on the same department.

In quoting the decision of the Executive on that case, the gentleman
from New York has taken occasion to bestow a high encomium on the late
President; and to consider his conduct as furnishing an example worthy
the imitation of his successor. It must be the cause of much delight to
the real friends of that great man; to those who supported his
Administration while in office from a conviction of its wisdom and its
virtue, to hear the unqualified praise which is now bestowed on it by
those who had been supposed to possess different opinions. If the
measure now under consideration shall be found, on examination, to be
the same in principle with that which has been cited, by its opponents,
as a fit precedent for it, then may the friends of the gentleman now in
office indulge the hope, that when he, like his predecessor, shall be no
more, his conduct too may be quoted as an example for the government of
his successors.

The evidence relied on to prove the opinion of the then Executive on the
case, consists of two letters from the Secretary of State, the one of
the 29th of June, 1793, to Mr. Genet, and the other of the 16th of
August, 1793, to Mr. Morris.

In the letter to Mr. Genet, the Secretary says, that the claimant having
filed his libel against the ship William, in the Court of Admiralty,
there was no power which could take the vessel out of court until it had
decided against its own jurisdiction; that having so decided, the
complaint is lodged with the Executive, and he asks for evidence, to
enable that department to consider and decide finally on the subject.

It will be difficult to find in this letter an Executive opinion, that
the case was not a case for Executive decision. The contrary is clearly
avowed. It is true, that when an individual, claiming the property as
his, had asserted that claim in court, the Executive acknowledges in
itself a want of power to dismiss or decide upon the claim thus pending
in court. But this argues no opinion of a want of power in itself to
decide upon the case, if, instead of being carried before a court as an
individual claim, it is brought before the Executive as a national
demand. A private suit instituted by an individual, asserting his claim
to property, can only be controlled by that individual. The Executive
can give no direction concerning it. But a public prosecution carried on
in the name of the United States can, without impropriety, be dismissed
at the will of the Government. The opinion, therefore, given in this
letter, is unquestionably correct; but it is certainly misunderstood,
when it is considered as being an opinion that the question was not in
its nature a question for Executive decision.

In the letter to Mr. Morris, the Secretary asserts the principle, that
vessels taken within our jurisdiction ought to be restored, but says, it
is yet unsettled whether the act of restoration is to be performed by
the Executive or Judicial Department. The principle, then, according to
this letter, is not submitted to the court--whether a vessel captured
within a given distance of the American coast, was or was not captured
within the jurisdiction of the United States, was a question not to be
determined by the courts, but by the Executive. The doubt expressed is
not what tribunal shall settle the principle, but what tribunal shall
settle the fact. In this respect, a doubt might exist in the case of
prizes, which could not exist in the case of a man. Individuals on each
side claimed the property, and therefore their rights could be brought
into court, and there contested as a case in law or equity. The demand
of a man made by a nation stands on different principles.

Having noticed the particular letters cited by the gentleman from New
York, permit me now, said Mr. M., to ask the attention of the House to
the whole course of Executive conduct on this interesting subject.

It is first mentioned in a letter from the Secretary of State to Mr.
Genet, of the 25th of June, 1793. In that letter, the Secretary states a
consultation between himself and the Secretaries of the Treasury and
War, (the President being absent,) in which (so well were they assured
of the President's way of thinking in those cases) it was determined
that the vessels should be detained in the custody of the Consuls, in
the ports, until the Government of the United States shall be able to
inquire into and decide on the fact.

In his letter of the 12th of July, 1793, the Secretary writes, the
President has determined to refer the questions concerning prizes "to
persons learned in the laws," and he requests that certain vessels
enumerated in the letter should not depart "until his ultimate
determination shall be made known."

In his letter of the 7th of August, 1793, the Secretary informs Mr.
Genet that the President considers the United States as bound "to
effectuate the restoration of, or to make compensation for, prizes which
shall have been made of any of the parties at war with France,
subsequent to the 5th day of June last, by privateers fitted out of our
ports." That it is consequently expected that Mr. Genet will cause
restitution of such prizes to be made, and that the United States "will
cause restitution" to be made "of all such prizes as shall be hereafter
brought within their ports by any of the said privateers."

In his letter of the 10th of November, 1793, the Secretary informs Mr.
Genet, that for the purpose of obtaining testimony to ascertain the fact
of capture within the jurisdiction of the United States, the Governors
of the several States were requested, on receiving any such claim,
immediately to notify thereof the Attorneys of their several districts,
whose duty it would be to give notice "to the principal agent of both
parties, and also to the Consuls of the nations interested; and to
recommend to them to appoint by mutual consent arbiters to decide
whether the capture was made within the jurisdiction of the United
States, as stated in my letter of the 8th inst., according to whose
award the Governor may proceed to deliver the vessel to the one or the
other party." "If either party refuse to name arbiters, then the
Attorney is to take depositions on notice, which he is to transmit for
the information and decision of the President." "This prompt procedure
is the more to be insisted on, as it will enable the President, by an
immediate delivery of the vessel and cargo to the party having title, to
prevent the injuries consequent on long delay."

In his letter of the 22d of November, 1793, the Secretary repeats, in
substance, his letter of the 12th of July and 7th of August, and says
that the determination to deliver up certain vessels, involved the brig
Jane, of Dublin, the brig Lovely Lass, and the brig Prince William
Henry. He concludes with saying: "I have it in charge to inquire of you,
sir, whether these three brigs have been given up according to the
determination of the President, and if they have not, to repeat the
requisition that they may be given up to their former owners."

Ultimately it was settled that the fact should be investigated in the
courts, but the decision was regulated by the principles established by
the Executive Department.

The decision, then, on the case of vessels captured within the American
jurisdiction, by privateers fitted out of the American ports, which the
gentleman from New York has cited with such merited approbation; which
he has declared to stand on the same principles with those which ought
to have governed the case of Thomas Nash; and which deserves the more
respect, because the Government of the United States was then so
circumstanced as to assure us that no opinion was lightly taken up, and
no resolution formed but on mature consideration; this decision, quoted
as a precedent and pronounced to be right, is found, on fair and full
examination, to be precisely and unequivocally the same with that which
was made in the case under consideration. It is a full authority to show
that, in the opinion always held by the American Government, a case
like that of Thomas Nash is a case for Executive and not Judicial
decision.

The clause in the constitution which declares that "the trial of all
crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury," has also been
relied on as operating on the case, and transferring the decision on a
demand for the delivery of an individual from the Executive to the
Judicial Department.

But certainly this clause in the Constitution of the United States
cannot be thought obligatory on, and for the benefit of, the whole
world. It is not designed to secure the rights of the people of Europe
and Asia, or to direct and control proceedings against criminals
throughout the universe. It can then be designed only to guide the
proceedings of our own courts, and to prescribe the mode of punishing
offences committed against the Government of the United States, and to
which the jurisdiction of the nation may rightfully extend.

It has already been shown that the courts of the United States were
incapable of trying the crime for which Thomas Nash was delivered up to
justice. The question to be determined was, not how his crime should be
tried and punished, but whether he should be delivered up to a foreign
tribunal, which was alone capable of trying and punishing him. A
provision for the trial of crimes in the courts of the United States is
clearly not a provision for the performance of a national compact for
the surrender to a foreign Government of an offender against that
Government.

The clause of the constitution declaring that the trial of all crimes
shall be by jury, has never even been construed to extend to the trial
of crimes committed in the land and naval forces of the United States.
Had such a construction prevailed, it would most probably have
prostrated the constitution itself, with the liberties and the
independence of the nation, before the first disciplined invader who
should approach our shores. Necessity would have imperiously demanded
the review and amendment of so unwise a provision. If, then, this clause
does not extend to offences committed in the fleets and armies of the
United States, how can it be construed to extend to offences committed
in the fleets and armies of Britain or of France, or of the Ottoman or
Russian Empires?

The same argument applies to the observations on the seventh article of
the amendments to the constitution. That article relates only to trials
in the courts of the United States, and not to the performance of a
contract for the delivery of a murderer not triable in those courts.

In this part of the argument, the gentleman from New York has presented
a dilemma, of a very wonderful structure indeed. He says that the
offence of Thomas Nash was either a crime or not a crime. If it was a
crime, the constitutional mode of punishment ought to have been
observed; if it was not a crime, he ought not to have been delivered up
to a foreign Government, where his punishment was inevitable.

It had escaped the observation of that gentleman, that if the murder
committed by Thomas Nash was a crime, yet it was not a crime provided
for by the constitution, or triable in the courts of the United States;
and that if it was not a crime, yet it is the precise case in which his
surrender was stipulated by treaty. Of this extraordinary dilemma, then,
the gentleman from New York is, himself, perfectly at liberty to retain
either horn. He has chosen to consider it as a crime, and says it has
been made a crime by treaty, and is punished by sending the offender out
of the country.

The gentleman is incorrect in every part of his statement. Murder on
board a British frigate is not a crime created by treaty. It would have
been a crime of precisely the same magnitude had the treaty never been
formed. It is not punished by sending the offender out of the United
States. The experience of this unfortunate criminal, who was hung and
gibbeted, evinced to him that the punishment of his crime was of a much
more serious nature than mere banishment from the United States.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Virginia have
both contended that this was a case proper for the decision of the
courts, because points of law occurred, and points of law must have been
decided in its determination.

The points of law which must have been decided, are stated by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania to be, first, a question whether the offence
was committed within the British jurisdiction; and, secondly, whether
the crime charged was comprehended within the treaty.

It is true, sir, these points of law must have occurred, and must have
been decided; but it by no means follows that they could only have been
decided in court. A variety of legal questions must present themselves
in the performance of every part of Executive duty, but these questions
are not therefore to be decided in court. Whether a patent for land
shall issue or not is always a question of law, but not a question which
must necessarily be carried into court. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
seems to have permitted himself to have been misled by the
misrepresentation of the constitution, made in the resolutions of the
gentleman from New York; and, in consequence of being so misled, his
observations have the appearance of endeavoring to fit the constitution
to his arguments, instead of adapting his arguments to the constitution.

When the gentleman has proved that these are questions of law, and that
they must have been decided by the President, he has not advanced a
single step towards proving that they were improper for Executive
decision. The question whether vessels captured within three miles of
the American coast, or by privateers fitted out in the American ports,
were legally captured or not, and whether the American Government was
bound to restore them, if in its power, were questions of law; but they
were questions of political law, proper to be decided, and they were
decided by the Executive, and not by the courts.

The _casus foederis_ of the guarantee was a question of law, but no
man could have hazarded the opinion that such a question must be carried
into court, and can only be there decided. So the _casus foederis_,
under the twenty-seventh article of the treaty with Great Britain, is a
question of law, but of political law. The question to be decided is,
whether the particular case proposed be one in which the nation has
bound itself to act, and this is a question depending on principles
never submitted to courts.

If a murder should be committed within the United States, and the
murderer should seek an asylum in Britain, the question whether the
_casus foederis_ of the twenty-seventh article had occurred, so that
his delivery ought to be demanded, would be a question of law, but no
man would say it was a question which ought to be decided in the courts.

When, therefore, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has established, that
in delivering up Thomas Nash, points of law were decided by the
President, he has established a position which in no degree whatever
aids his argument.

The case was in its nature a national demand made upon the nation. The
parties were the two nations. They cannot come into court to litigate
their claims, nor can a court decide on them. Of consequence, the demand
is not a case for judicial cognizance.

The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations,
and its sole representative with foreign nations. Of consequence, the
demand of a foreign nation can only be made on him.

He possesses the whole Executive power. He holds and directs the force
of the nation. Of consequence, any act to be performed by the force of
the nation is to be performed through him.

He is charged to execute the laws. A treaty is declared to be a law. He
must then execute a treaty, where he, and he alone, possesses the means
of executing it.

The treaty, which is a law, enjoins the performance of a particular
object. The person who is to perform this object is marked out by the
constitution, since the person is named who conducts the foreign
intercourse, and is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
The means by which it is to be performed, the force of the nation, are
in the hands of this person. Ought not this person to perform the
object, although the particular mode of using the means has not been
prescribed? Congress, unquestionably, may prescribe the mode, and
Congress may devolve on others the whole execution of the contract; but,
till this be done, it seems the duty of the Executive Department to
execute the contract by any means it possesses.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania contends that, although this should be
properly an Executive duty, yet it cannot be performed until Congress
shall direct the mode of performance. He says that, although the
jurisdiction of the courts is extended by the constitution to all cases
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, yet if the courts had been
created without any express assignment of jurisdiction, they could not
have taken cognizance of cases expressly allotted to them by the
constitution. The Executive, he says, can, no more than courts, supply a
legislative omission.

It is not admitted that, in the case stated, courts could not have taken
jurisdiction. The contrary is believed to have been the correct opinion.
And although the Executive cannot supply a total Legislative omission,
yet it is not admitted or believed that there is such a total omission
in this case.

The treaty, stipulating that a murderer shall be delivered up to
justice, is as obligatory as an act of Congress making the same
declaration. If, then, there was an act of Congress in the words of the
treaty, declaring that a person who had committed murder within the
jurisdiction of Britain, and sought an asylum within the territory of
the United States, should be delivered up by the United States, on the
demand of His Britannic Majesty, and such evidence of his criminality,
as would have justified his commitment for trial, had the offence been
here committed; could the President, who is bound to execute the laws,
have justified the refusal to deliver up the criminal, by saying, that
the Legislature had totally omitted to provide for the case.

The Executive is not only the constitutional department, but seems to be
the proper department to which the power in question may most wisely and
most safely be confided.

The department which is intrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of
the nation, with the negotiation of all its treaties, with the power of
demanding a reciprocal performance of the article, which is accountable
to the nation for the violation of its engagements with foreign nations,
and for the consequences resulting from such violation, seems the proper
department to be intrusted with the execution of a national contract
like that under consideration.

If, at any time, policy may temper the strict execution of the contract,
where may that political discretion be placed so safely as in the
department whose duty it is to understand precisely the state of the
political intercourse and connection between the United States and
foreign nations, to understand the manner in which the particular
stipulation is explained and performed by foreign nations, and to
understand completely the state of the Union?

This department, too, independent of judicial aid, which may, perhaps,
in some instances, be called in, is furnished with a great law officer,
whose duty it is to understand and to advise when the _casus foederis_
occurs. And if the President should cause to be arrested under the
treaty an individual who was so circumstanced as not to be properly the
object of such an arrest, he may perhaps bring the question of the
legality of his arrest before a judge, by a writ of habeas corpus.

It is then demonstrated, that, according to the principles of the
American Government, the question whether the nation has or has not
bound itself to deliver up any individual, charged with having committed
murder or forgery within the jurisdiction of Britain, is a question the
power to decide which rests alone with the Executive Department.

It remains to inquire whether, in exercising this power, and in
performing the duty it enjoins, the President has committed an
unauthorized and dangerous interference with judicial decisions.

That Thomas Nash was committed originally at the instance of the British
Consul at Charleston, not for trial in the American courts, but for the
purpose of being delivered up to justice in conformity with the treaty
between the two nations, has been already so ably argued by the
gentleman from Delaware, that nothing further can be added to that
point. He would therefore, Mr. MARSHALL said, consider the case as if
Nash had been delivered up instead of having been committed for trial.
Admitting even this to have been the fact, the conclusions which have
been drawn from it were by no means warranted.

Gentlemen had considered it as an offence against judicial authority,
and a violation of judicial rights, to withdraw from their sentence a
criminal against whom a prosecution had been commenced. They had treated
the subject as if it was the privilege of courts to condemn to death the
guilty wretch arraigned at their bar, and that to intercept the judgment
was to violate the privilege. Nothing can be more incorrect than this
view of the case. It is not the privilege, it is the sad duty of courts
to administer criminal judgment. It is a duty to be performed at the
demand of the nation, and with which the nation has a right to dispense.
If judgment of death is to be pronounced, it must be at the prosecution
of the nation, and the nation may at will stop that prosecution. In this
respect the President expresses constitutionally the will of the nation;
and may rightfully, as was done in the case at Trenton, enter a _nolle
prosequi_, or direct that the criminal be prosecuted no farther. This is
no interference with judicial decisions, nor any invasion of the
province of a court. It is the exercise of an indubitable and a
constitutional power. Had the President directed the Judge of Charleston
to decide for or against his own jurisdiction, to condemn or acquit the
prisoner, this would have been a dangerous interference with judicial
decisions, and ought to have been resisted. But no such direction has
been given, nor any such decision been required. If the President
determined that Thomas Nash ought to have been delivered up to the
British Government for a murder committed on board a British frigate,
provided evidence of the fact was adduced, it was a question which duty
obliged him to determine, and which he determined rightly. If, in
consequence of this determination, he arrested the proceedings of a
court on a national prosecution, he had a right to arrest and to stop
them, and the exercise of this right was a necessary consequence of the
determination of the principal question. In conforming to this decision,
the court has left open the question of its jurisdiction. Should another
prosecution of the same sort be commenced, which should not be suspended
but continued by the Executive, the case of Thomas Nash would not bind
as a precedent against the jurisdiction of the court. If it should even
prove that, in the opinion of the Executive, a murder committed on board
a foreign fleet was not within the jurisdiction of the court, it would
prove nothing more; and though this opinion might rightfully induce the
Executive to exercise his power over the prosecution, yet if the
prosecution was continued, it would have no influence with the court in
deciding on its jurisdiction.

Taking the fact, then, even to be as the gentlemen in support of the
resolutions would state it, the fact cannot avail them.

It is to be remembered, too, that in the case stated to the President,
the Judge himself appears to have considered it as proper for Executive
decision, and to have wished that decision. The President and Judge seem
to have entertained, on this subject, the same opinion, and in
consequence of the opinion of the Judge, the application was made to the
President.

It has then been demonstrated--

1st. That the case of Thomas Nash, as stated to the President, was
completely within the twenty-seventh article of the treaty between the
United States and Great Britain.

2d. That this question was proper for Executive, and not for Judicial
decision; and,

3d. That in deciding it, the President is not chargeable with an
interference with judicial decisions.

After trespassing so long, Mr. MARSHALL said, on the patience of the
House, in arguing what had appeared to him to be the material points
growing out of the resolutions, he regretted the necessity of detaining
them still longer for the purpose of noticing an observation which
appeared not to be considered by the gentleman who made it as belonging
to the argument.

The subject introduced by this observation, however, was so calculated
to interest the public feelings, that he must be excused for stating his
opinion on it.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania had said that an impressed American
seaman, who should commit homicide for the purpose of liberating
himself from the vessel in which he was confined, ought not to be given
up as a murderer. In this, Mr. M. said, he concurred entirely with that
gentleman. He believed the opinion to be unquestionably correct, as were
the reasons that gentleman had given in support of it. He had never
heard any American avow a contrary sentiment, nor did he believe a
contrary sentiment could find a place in the bosom of an American. He
could not pretend, and did not pretend to know the opinion of the
Executive on this subject, because he had never heard the opinions of
that department; but he felt the most perfect conviction, founded on the
general conduct of the Government, that it could never surrender an
impressed American to the nation which, in making the impressment, had
committed a national injury.

This belief was in no degree shaken by the conduct of the Executive in
this particular case.

In his own mind, it was a sufficient defence of the President from an
imputation of this kind, that the fact of Thomas Nash being an impressed
American, was obviously not contemplated by him in the decision he made
on the principles of the case. Consequently, if a new circumstance
occurred, which would essentially change the case decided by the
President, the Judge ought not to have acted under that decision, but
the new circumstance ought to have been stated. Satisfactory as this
defence might appear, he should not resort to it, because to some it
might seem a subterfuge. He defended the conduct of the President on
other and still stronger ground.

The President had decided that a murder committed on board a British
frigate on the high seas, was within the jurisdiction of that nation,
and consequently within the twenty-seventh article of its treaty with
the United States. He therefore directed Thomas Nash to be delivered to
the British Minister, if satisfactory evidence of the murder should be
adduced. The sufficiency of the evidence was submitted entirely to the
Judge.

If Thomas Nash had committed a murder, the decision was that he should
be surrendered to the British Minister; but if he had not committed a
murder, he was not to be surrendered.

Had Thomas Nash been an impressed American, the homicide on board the
Hermione would, most certainly, not have been a murder.

The act of impressing an American, is an act of lawless violence. The
confinement on board a vessel, is a continuation of the violence, and an
additional outrage. Death committed within the United States, in
resisting such violence, would not have been murder, and the person
giving the wound could not have been treated as a murderer. Thomas Nash
was only to have been delivered up to justice on such evidence as, had
the fact been committed within the United States, would have been
sufficient to have induced his commitment and trial for murder. Of
consequence, the decision of the President was so expressed, as to
exclude the case of an impressed American liberating himself by
homicide. He concluded with observing, that he had already too long
availed himself of the indulgence of the House, to venture farther on
that indulgence by recapitulating or reinforcing the arguments which had
already been urged.

When Mr. MARSHALL had concluded, Mr. DANA rose and spoke against the
resolutions.

An adjournment was then called for and carried--yeas 50, nays 48.


SATURDAY, March 8.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

The House resumed the consideration of the report made on Thursday last,
by the Committee of the whole House, to whom was referred the Message of
the President of the United States, of the seventh ultimo, containing
their disagreement to the motion referred to them on the twentieth
ultimo; and the said motion being read, in the words following, to wit:

(See _ante_--Mr. LIVINGSTON'S resolution, February 20.)[53]

Mr. NICHOLAS spoke in answer to Mr. MARSHALL.

The question was then taken that the House do agree with the Committee
of the Whole in their disagreement to the same, and resolved in the
affirmative--yeas 61, nays 35, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, George Baer, Bailey Bartlett, James
      A. Bayard, John Bird, John Brown, William Cooper, William
      Craik, John Davenport, Franklin Davenport, Thomas T. Davis,
      John Dennis, George Dent, Joseph Dickson, William Edmond,
      Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan
      Freeman, Henry Glenn, Samuel Goode, Chauncey Goodrich,
      Elizur Goodrich, William Gordon, Edwin Gray, Roger
      Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper,
      Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, James H. Imlay, James
      Jones, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Lee, Silas Lee, Samuel
      Lyman, James Linn, John Marshall, Abraham Nott, Harrison G.
      Otis, Robert Page, Josiah Parker, Thomas Pinckney, Jonas
      Platt, Leven Powell, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., Samuel
      Sewall, James Sheafe, William Shepard, Richard Dobbs
      Spaight, David Stone, Benjamin Taliaferro, George Thatcher,
      John Chew Thomas, Richard Thomas, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg
      Wadsworth, Robert Waln, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Robert Brown,
      Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, John
      Condit, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler,
      Albert Gallatin, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph
      Heister, David Holmes, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell,
      Michael Leib, Matthew Lyon, Edward Livingston, Nathaniel
      Macon, Peter Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Joseph
      H. Nicholson, John Randolph, John Smilie, John Smith,
      Samuel Smith, Thomas Sumter, John Thompson, Abram Trigg,
      John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, and Robert Williams.

A motion was made to adjourn. Mr. MACON hoped the House would sit and
decide the resolution proposed by the gentleman from Delaware, so as to
have done with the business, and not to enter on another week with it;
however, 54 rising for the adjournment, it was carried.


MONDAY, March 10.

_Case of Jonathan Robbins._

Mr. BAYARD moved that the Committee of the whole House, to whom was
referred the Message of the President, relative to Thomas Nash, alias
Jonathan Robbins, and a resolution submitted by himself to the House,
approbating the conduct of the President, and referred to that
committee, be discharged from the further consideration thereof.

A long debate arose upon this motion, in which Messrs. RANDOLPH, DAVIS,
JONES, NICHOLAS, LIVINGSTON, and EGGLESTON, spoke against it--and
Messrs. BAYARD, BIRD, OTIS, KITTERA, VARNUM, RUTLEDGE, EDMOND, SHEPARD,
and H. LEE, in favor of it; when the question was taken by yeas and
nays, and carried in the affirmative--yeas 62, nays 35.


MONDAY, March 17.

_Medal to Captain Truxton._

Mr. PARKER observed that information had been received of a very gallant
action having occurred between a frigate of the United States of 38
guns, commanded by Commodore Truxton, and a French vessel of 52 guns,
which was extremely bloody, but valiant on the part of the United States
commander. It was not usual to grant emoluments on account of any
particular gallant action, to our officers, but to give approbation was
common and consistent. In other countries, he said, monuments had been
erected to commemorate such splendid victories.

As a testimonial of the regard of Congress for the officers who so
bravely supported the flag of the United States, and to encourage
similar acts of bravery, he would propose the following resolution:

      _Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States in Congress assembled_, That a golden
      medal, emblematical of the late action between the United
      States frigate Constellation of 38 guns, and the French
      ship-of-war La Vengeance of 52 guns, be purchased under the
      Secretary of the Navy, and be presented to Captain Thomas
      Truxton, in testimony of the high sense entertained by
      Congress of his gallantry and good conduct in the above
      engagement, wherein an example was exhibited by the
      captain, officers, sailors, and marines, honorable to the
      American name, and instructive to its rising Navy.

The resolution was ordered to lie on the table.


TUESDAY, March 18.

_Officers and Crew of the Constellation._

Mr. PARKER moved that the unfinished business be postponed for the
purpose of taking up the resolution which he yesterday laid on the
table, relative to the captain, officers, and crew of the Constellation;
when

Mr. NICHOLSON said he wished it might not be taken into consideration
until some official information was received upon the subject from the
Secretary of the Navy, upon which resolutions can be grounded. In his
opinion, the resolution of the gentleman did not go far enough. It had
been said, that a young officer had voluntarily lost his life, rather
than shrink from his duty, which he thought ought to be noticed. He was
in favor of giving his approbation of the conduct of the officers and
crew in more general terms than the resolution on the table
contemplated.

After some observations from Messrs. CHAMPLIN and HARPER, who were of
the same opinion,

Mr. PARKER said, he did not suppose a doubt could exist upon this
subject sufficient to require any further information than had been
received through the medium of the newspapers. He had seen a letter in
the possession of the Secretary of the Navy, from Captain Baker, of the
Delaware, who had every opportunity of knowing the situation of the
enemy's frigate, was in the same harbor, and, being a nautical man, was
of course able to give a correct opinion on her then situation, and the
evident marks of the bravery of her antagonist with whom she
contended--this was sufficient to satisfy his mind.

If, said Mr. P., gentlemen think the resolution does not go far enough,
there is no one who will more cheerfully concur in offering other
testimonies of approbation, than myself. With respect to the young
officer,[54] whose gallantry and good conduct had been so highly spoken
of, it was his intention to have brought forward a resolution for
setting up his bust in a niche of the Capitol of the city of Washington.

Mr. P. concluded with observing that he had no objection to call for
information from the Secretary of the Navy, and would therefore withdraw
his motion.

Mr. PARKER then moved that the House come to the following resolution,
viz:

      _Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to
      lay before this House any information he may possess,
      respecting the engagement which lately took place in the
      West Indies between the United States frigate Constellation
      and a French ship-of-war; _and, also, respecting the
      conduct of James Jarvis, a midshipman on board the said
      frigate_.

Mr. SMITH moved to strike out the words in italics, which created
considerable debate; when

Mr. BIRD proposed to insert in lieu thereof, the following words: "And
also upon the conduct of any officer or other person on board said
frigate, who may have particularly signalized himself in the said
action;" which Mr. B. supposed would meet the intention of the mover,
and be less liable to objection than the words proposed to be stricken
out.

Mr. PARKER having consented to the modification, the resolution was
agreed to.


WEDNESDAY, March 19.

_Military Academy, &c._

Mr. OTIS, from the Committee of Defence, reported a bill for
establishing a Military Academy, and for better organizing the corps of
Engineers and Artillerists.

The bill was proceeding to be read, when Mr. OTIS suggested that as this
bill contained much the same in detail as a report on the subject made
by the Secretary of War, with which every gentleman was acquainted, he
supposed the reading would not be necessary.

Mr. MACON said he should have no objection to its being read a first
time, though he did not think it necessary; but he would give notice
that it was his intention to move that the bill be rejected. He
mentioned his reasons to be the expense of the measure generally, which
it was an improper time to incur.

The bill having been read, he made the motion.

Mr. OTIS and Mr. CHAMPLIN answered. Mr. VARNUM supported the motion,
which was at length negatived, 49 to 42; and the bill was referred to a
Committee of the whole House.


THURSDAY, March 20.

_Removal of Seat of Government._

Mr. OTIS observed that it appeared to be the general opinion that the
seat of Government would be removed to the Federal City, and that
Congress would commence their next session at that place; and as some
preliminary measures were necessary to be made previous thereto; and as
it would be reposing too much power in the Commissioners who now act
there to rely entirely on their reports; and as some measures must be
reported and adopted before the end of the present session, he laid on
the table the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to consider what
      measures are expedient for Congress to adopt, preparatory
      to the removal of the seat of Government, with leave to
      report by bill or otherwise."

_Amy Dardin's Case._

The House went into a committee on the report of the Committee of Claims
on the petition of Amy Dardin, which was that the prayer of the
petitioner ought not to be granted. Being taken up in the House, the
propriety and impropriety of granting it was again contended, when there
appeared in favor of the report 42, against it 42. The SPEAKER decided
in the affirmative, so that the claim was not admitted.


FRIDAY, March 21.

_Action of the Frigate Constellation._

The SPEAKER laid before the House a report from the Secretary of the
Navy, in compliance with the instructions of the House, respecting the
engagement which occurred between the frigate Constellation and a French
ship-of-war. The report enclosed a letter from Captain Truxton,
detailing the action, and also extracts of letters from the American
Consul at Curaçoa, and one from the American agent at St. Kitts,
respecting the disabled state of the French ship La Vengeur. As to any
particular specimen of valor, the Secretary received no information; but
that all the officers and men had acted with the most unexampled bravery
and decorum was attested by the captain, whose good management was
evinced by the singular success of the action. The Secretary mentions
the singular bravery of James Jarvis, a Midshipman, who preferred death
to quitting his post.

On motion of Mr. H. LEE, this report, together with a resolution
proposed some days since by Mr. PARKER, was referred to the Naval
Committee.


MONDAY, March 26.

_Medal to Captain Truxton._

Mr. PARKER, from the Naval Committee, reported the following
resolutions:

      "_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States, in Congress assembled_, That the
      President of the United States be requested to present to
      Captain Thomas Truxton, a golden medal, emblematical of the
      late action between the United States frigate
      Constellation, of 38 guns, and the French ship-of-war La
      Vengeur, of 54 guns, in testimony of the high sense
      entertained by Congress of his gallantry and good conduct
      in the above engagement, wherein an example was exhibited
      by the captain, officers, sailors, and marines, honorable
      to the American name, and instructive to its rising navy.

      "_Resolved_, That the conduct of James Jarvis, a midshipman
      in said frigate, who gloriously preferred certain death to
      an abandonment of his post, is deserving of the highest
      praise; and that the loss of so promising an officer is a
      subject of national regret."

The House then proceeded to the consideration of these resolutions; the
first of which being under consideration,

Mr. RANDOLPH said, that inasmuch as he could not give his assent to
these resolutions, he felt impressed with the propriety of stating the
reasons which would govern his vote.

It was not with any intention to detract from the deserved reputation
which had been so nobly earned by the captain, officers, and crew of the
Constellation; still less to withhold the well-earned applause due to
that gallant youth who had sacrificed his life in the prosecution of his
duty. It was to the first of these resolutions, only, that he should
deny his concurrence. He should do this, unless the gentlemen of the
Naval Committee should show to him that it was the duty of the commander
of the Constellation to persist in the chase, and compel to action a
ship of such superior force. This conduct was, in his opinion, rash;
and, when the situation of the United States and France was taken into
consideration, it was peculiarly unadvisable. Our Commissioners were at
this time in the capital of that country negotiating peace. How did the
pursuit of this ship--the forcing her into an action, which ended in the
crippling of both vessels--comport with that protection which was to be
afforded to our commerce by the Constellation?

Mr. R. said that his duty obliged him to act upon his own opinion; and,
however singular it may appear, he should vote against the first
resolution, unless the gentleman who brought it forward would make it
appear that it was the duty of Captain Truxton to compel the Vengeance
to come to action, when he knew her to be of such superior force. The
second resolution met his most hearty approbation.

Mr. PARKER said, what the present state of things between the two
countries might be, in the opinion of his colleague, he could not say;
but Mr. P. conceived it was no other than it was at the time Congress
passed a bill which prescribed the conduct of our naval commanders. In
that bill they were authorized to take or destroy all French armed
vessels: under these orders Captain Truxton left this country, and, in
obedience to instructions to that effect, he pursued and engaged this
vessel, which, though of superior force, he had beaten. Had he not
attacked her, it is most probable she would have proceeded against our
commerce. The law having been passed by Congress, if the President of
the United States had not given orders conformably thereto, he would
have been subject to impeachment. He, therefore, presumed it to be his
duty; and, most certainly, such orders being given to the commanders,
they were bound to conform to them. Mr. P. thought that this and greater
approbation ought to be expressed by Congress for conduct so brave and
unprecedented. In some countries monuments had been raised, but this was
unnecessary, though merited. Our naval exertions were very recent and
confined, but an instance of extraordinary valor having occurred it
ought to be honorably and suitably noticed.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, however he might agree with his colleague (Mr.
RANDOLPH) in a desire that no conduct should be encouraged that would
tend to aggravate France in the present situation of things, he could
not agree with him in his present sentiments. While we were in a state
of actual, though not of declared war, Mr. N. thought it was naturally
to be expected that our commanders would act in their complete military
character, when our ships were arrayed for battle, and power given to
act up to the full rigor which the laws of honor and of war would
warrant. In the conduct of the captain, as well as the crew, Mr. N.
said, he saw nothing but what was extremely laudable, and highly
meriting approbation.

Mr. LYON said he rose to request the division of the question on the
resolutions. He was disposed to vote for the latter resolution, and not
for the former.

The SPEAKER declared they would be divided, and that the question before
the House was on the agreeing to the first resolution.

Mr. LYON observed that he had voted for the equipment of the three
frigates under an impression that they would be employed solely for the
protection of the commerce of this country: but now he found himself
called upon to give thanks or praise to the commander of one of those
frigates, and for what? for going out of the station assigned to him, as
the most proper for the protection of the trading vessels of this
country, in chase of a ship-of-war of much superior force; and for
reducing the ship under his command, as well as that of his opponent, to
a mere wreck. Mr. L. said he had seen nothing in the orders which had
been published directing him to do this, nor did he think policy or
prudence dictated the measure. Let all our naval commanders be excited
to follow this example; let them play or fight each of them their vessel
against a French vessel-of-war of superior force in the same way, and
our naval force is crippled, while the French will scarcely feel their
loss; then our commerce would be wholly at their mercy. Besides these
considerations, what is there to defend that commerce, on the station
left destitute by the Constellation, while she is refitting. For his
part he was as glad and proud as any gentleman that our officers, and
our sailors, and our marines, had behaved gallantly and done themselves
and their country honor, in the late action, but he did not feel himself
bound, under existing circumstances, to give distinguished praise to the
conduct which produced it; he should therefore vote against the
resolution.

Mr. J. BROWN would vote for this resolution for the very reason which
some gentlemen urged for voting against it. He thought the very fact of
chasing a ship of superior force, and forcing her to an action which had
been attended with success, was a commendable act. This to him would be
the only inducement for paying so high a mark of national respect. If it
had been an attack upon a vessel of inferior force, he should not think
it worth notice. The objection was partly on account of the French ship
being of superior force; surely this would rather be a reason why we
should have vessels of greater force than we have now; therefore he
hoped the worthy member would suffer that brave officer to go to sea
next time with a 74-gun ship under his command, when he would doubtless
bring the enemy to a good account.

The yeas and nays were called on this resolution and carried--yeas 87,
nays 4, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, George Baer, Bailey Bartlett, John
      Bird, Phanuel Bishop, Jonathan Brace, John Brown, Robert
      Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Christopher G. Champlin, William
      C. C. Claiborne, John Condit, William Cooper, Samuel W.
      Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, John
      Dennis, George Dent, Joseph Dickson, William Edmond, Joseph
      Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster,
      Dwight Foster, John Fowler, Jonathan Freeman, Albert
      Gallatin, Henry Glenn, Samuel Goode, Chauncey Goodrich,
      Elizur Goodrich, William Gordon, Edwin Gray, Roger
      Griswold, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas
      Hartley, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, David
      Holmes, Benjamin Huger, James H. Imlay, James Jones, Aaron
      Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Lee, Silas Lee,
      Michael Leib, Samuel Lyman, James Linn, Nathaniel Macon,
      John Marshall, Peter Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Joseph H. Nicholson, Abraham Nott, Harrison G.
      Otis, Josiah Parker, Thomas Pinckney, Jonas Platt, Leven
      Powell, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., Samuel Sewall, James
      Sheafe, William Shepard, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel
      Smith, Richard Stanford, David Stone, Benjamin Taliaferro,
      George Thatcher, John Chew Thomas, John Thompson, Abram
      Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
      Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, Robert Williams, Lemuel
      Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--George Jackson, Matthew Lyon, John Randolph, and
      Thomas Sumter.

The other resolution was adopted _unanimously_.


MONDAY, March 31.

_Lake Superior Copper Mines._

The House, according to the order of the day, again resolved itself into
a Committee of the whole House on the report of the committee appointed,
on the 5th instant, to inquire into the expediency of authorizing the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to appoint an agent to purchase of the
Indians a tract of land on the south side of Lake Superior, which shall
include the great copper bed; and, after some time spent therein, the
committee rose and reported a resolution thereupon; which was twice
read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

      _Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
      the President of the United States be authorized to employ
      an agent, who shall be instructed to collect all material
      information relative to the copper mines on the south side
      of Lake Superior, and to ascertain whether the Indian title
      to such lands as might be required for the use of the
      United States, in case they should deem it expedient to
      work the said mines, be yet subsisting; and, if so, the
      terms on which the same can be extinguished: And that the
      said agent be instructed to make report to the President,
      in such time as the information he may collect may be laid
      before Congress at their next session.

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolution to
the Senate, and desire their concurrence.


WEDNESDAY, April 2.

_Removal of the Seat of Government._

The House then resolved itself into a committee on the bill to make
further progress for the removal and accommodation of the Government of
the United States.

A motion was then made to fill a blank for the accommodation of the
household of the President, about which considerable conversation
occurred; when Mr. RUTLEDGE moved that the committee rise, in order that
time may be given for learning the amount of money wanting for this
object, and because he supposed the Chairman of the committee, who was
absent, might be able to give that information. The motion was
afterwards withdrawn, but renewed by the SPEAKER, and at length carried.


THURSDAY, April 3.

_Lands given in satisfaction of Judgments._

Mr. HARPER observed that in some of the States lands were received in
satisfaction of judgments, which also was the case in such places where
the United States were plaintiffs. To remedy what he conceived an evil,
he laid on the table the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire and
      report, by bill or otherwise, whether any, and what,
      further provisions are necessary to be made relative to the
      sales of real estate delivered to the United States in
      satisfaction of judgments against persons indebted
      thereto."

Three members were appointed.


FRIDAY, April 4.

_Removal of the Seat of Government._

The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for the
removal and accommodation of the Government of the United States.

Mr. HARPER proposed to amend the act so as that the sum to accommodate
the household of the President of the United States with furniture, in
addition to what was now in possession of the President, should not
operate until after the third of March next. This he did, he said, in
consequence of some constitutional doubts which he had expressed. The
constitution declaring that the salary of the President should receive
no addition nor diminution during his being in office. This was
concurred in.

The question then was, what sum should be allowed for that purpose;
$20,000, $15,000, and $10,000, were severally named.

Mr. RANDOLPH, considering the principle itself unconstitutional, moved,
in order to defeat the section altogether, (it having been amended and
being out of order to move its being stricken out,) to insert the sum of
$500. These different sums called forth a lengthy debate. The sum of
$20,000 was negatived--45 to 39. That of $15,000 was carried--yeas 44,
nays 42.

The bill being gone through, was ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading on Monday.


FRIDAY, April 18.

_Disputed Elections of President, &c._

Mr. NICHOLSON called for the order of the day on the bill prescribing
the mode of deciding disputed elections of President and Vice President
of the United States.

Mr. HARPER moved that it be postponed till Monday.

Mr. NICHOLSON, after expressing his abhorrence of the principles
contained in the bill, then moved that it be postponed till the first
Monday in December next.

Messrs. HARPER, DANA, RUTLEDGE, and MARSHALL, opposed this motion; and
Messrs. S. SMITH, GALLATIN, RANDOLPH, NICHOLSON, and NICHOLAS, supported
it.

The question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the
negative--yeas 48, nays 52.

Mr. HARPER'S motion for postponement till Monday, was then agreed
to--ayes 54.


MONDAY, April 21.

_Admirals in the Navy._

Mr. PARKER, from the Naval Committee, reported a bill for the
appointment of admirals for the navy.

[This bill provides for the appointment of one Vice Admiral and four
Rear Admirals, and arranges the fleet into squadrons.]

It was read a first time, and on the question for the second reading, it
was carried--37 to 31. Having been read a second time, Mr. GALLATIN
moved its postponement till the first Monday in December next.

The SPEAKER said the question was, whether it should be committed or
not? The question for commitment was carried, 37 to 32. The question was
then to make it the order of the day for the first Monday in December
next.

Mr. EGGLESTON hoped it would be postponed. He said it would be agreed
upon to suspend the building of the 74's for the present year; in
addition to this our difference with France would most probably be soon
adjusted. Another reason was, it would incur an addition of expense,
which it would be improper to go into, having recently agreed to borrow
$3,500,000. He was really surprised to hear such a bill proposed; he
scarcely could think his colleague sincere.

Mr. PARKER said that the building of the 74's was not suspended, but it
was thought advisable not to hurry their building. He stated a number of
conveniences that would attend the new arrangement; that the whole
expense would not be more than $10,000, but owing to the advantages, he
believed it would be a real saving. He did not think there could be any
certainty of a peace, from the revolutionary disposition of France; but
even if it was certain that peace would be made with that nation, it was
not certain that the combined powers would not renew their hostilities.
He wished this measure to be adopted, even if it was at the expense of
the army. The return of peace would render the army nugatory, except
just enough for the garrisons; the whole of the army expenses, he said,
was upwards of four millions, but the whole sum expended on the navy
(really a more efficient defence and advantage) was little more than two
millions. He wished our naval defence to be nurtured and rendered
respectable, for which the squadron arrangements and appointments of
suitable commanders were necessary.

Mr. CHAMPLIN also spoke in favor of the bill, and in favor of its
commitment for an earlier day.

Mr. CLAIBORNE could not think the gentleman (Mr. PARKER) sincere in his
professions that the army was not necessary, when he perceived that
every motion to reduce the army, which by other gentlemen was thought
absolutely necessary, had as uniformly been opposed by that gentleman.
Mr. C. said he did not look forward to a period when the navy as well as
the army would be unnecessary. This appointment might take place at any
time when there should be necessity of it; and, therefore, as it was not
pretended the 74's could be built before the next session, it would then
be time enough to think of voting these officers.

The SPEAKER said that it was unknown in the Parliamentary proceedings of
any country that the merits of a bill were discussed on a motion for
postponement; he must therefore say that any discussion on the bill was
out of order, and that gentlemen must confine themselves merely on the
question of the day this bill should be made the order for.

Mr. HARPER stated some of the inconveniences that must attend gentlemen
who brought in, or would wish to support a bill being presented,
recommending its provision by a motion to postpone; he conceived the
bill a valuable one, and wished for an opportunity of endeavoring to
convince the House of that fact, but he was precluded by the decision of
the Chair, he must therefore beg leave to appeal from the decision.

The question was put, "Is the decision of the Chair right?" and
carried--yeas 65.

Mr. SMITH said he should vote for this bill being the order for December
next, but if the 74's were then ordered to proceed, he should vote for
this bill, if then proposed.

The yeas and nays were taken on the question, "Shall this bill be
postponed till the first Monday in December next?" and decided in the
negative--yeas 44, nays 45, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop,
      Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Matthew Clay, William C. C.
      Claiborne, John Condit, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson,
      Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert
      Gallatin, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna,
      Joseph Heister, David Holmes, George Jackson, James Jones,
      Michael Leib, Matthew Lyon, James Linn, Nathaniel Macon,
      Peter Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Joseph H.
      Nicholson, Abraham Nott, John Randolph, John Smilie, John
      Smith, Samuel Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Richard
      Stanford, David Stone, Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Taliaferro,
      John Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum,
      and Robert Williams.

      NAYS.--George Baer, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard,
      Jonathan Brace, John Brown, Christopher G. Champlin,
      William Cooper, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Franklin
      Davenport, John Dennis, George Dent, Joseph Dickson,
      William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster,
      Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur
      Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, Benjamin
      Huger, James H. Imlay, Henry Lee, Silas Lee, Samuel Lyman,
      Lewis R. Morris, Robert Page, Josiah Parker, Thomas
      Pinckney, Jonas Platt, Leven Powell, John Read, John
      Rutledge, jun., Samuel Sewall, James Sheafe, William
      Shepard, George Thatcher, John Chew Thomas, Richard Thomas,
      Robert Waln, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

The bill was then made the order for to-morrow.


FRIDAY, April 25.

_Congress Library._

Mr. DENNIS said that by the act passed the present session, further to
provide for the removal and accommodation of the Government of the
United States, a sum not exceeding $5,000 was appropriated for the
purpose of procuring a Library. In order to carry that provision into
execution, he would move the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That ---- be a committee, jointly with such
      committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate,
      for the purpose of making out a catalogue of books, and
      adopting the best mode of procuring a Library, at the city
      of Washington; and for adopting a system of rules and
      regulations relative thereto."

This motion was agreed to, and Messrs. WALN, EVANS, and POWELL,
appointed.


SATURDAY, April 26.

_Slave Trade._

The House resolved itself into a committee on the bill from the Senate,
in addition to the act, entitled "An act prohibiting the carrying on the
slave trade from the United States to any foreign place or country."

Mr. J. BROWN said, when the motion was first laid on the table, he
thought it improper to prevent the citizens of the United States
enjoying the benefits of a trade enjoyed by all the European nations. He
really was in hopes that the good sense of the select committee would
have permitted them to have seen the policy of realizing the act in
question. Many members of the House, he observed, knew how the former
act was passed; they knew that Congress was drilled into it by certain
persons who would not take _no_ for an answer. It was well known that
the Abolition Society, otherwise the Society of Friends, as they were
called, were very troublesome until they got that act passed. It was
also well known that those people did not do much to support the
Government, but that they did as much as they could to stop the measures
of the Government, and particularly our defensive system, on which our
national security depended.

Mr. NICHOLAS asked whether it was in order to abuse any class of
citizens in this manner, and particularly since no motion was before the
committee?

The CHAIRMAN said he conceived the gentleman to be in order, since he
supposed he was about to make a motion affecting the principle of the
bill.

Mr. BROWN resumed. He was only speaking, agreeably to his information,
how this bill came originally into existence. He was certain that this
nation having an act against the slave trade, did not prevent the
exportation of a slave from Africa. He believed we might as well,
therefore, enjoy that trade, as to leave it wholly to others. It was the
law of that country to export those whom they held in slavery--who were
as much slaves there as those who were slaves in this country--and with
as much right. The very idea of making a law against this trade, which
all other nations enjoyed, and which was allowed to be very profitable,
was ill policy. He would further say that it was wrong, when considered
in a moral point of view, since, by the operation of the trade, the very
people themselves much bettered their condition. It ought to be a matter
of national policy, since it would bring in a good revenue to our
Treasury. It was not pleasing to him, Mr. B. said, to pay an interest of
8 per cent. for our loan: rather than borrow money, he would wish to be
paying off some of our old standing debt, which could be done by
increasing our commerce, or rendering it free. He wished it to be free
as the wind that blew--from one end of the world to the other. As he
observed before, he believed not one more slave would be exported from
Africa, while our merchants and our revenue would enjoy the benefit.

Mr. B. said, our distilleries and manufactories were all lying idle for
want of an extended commerce. He had been well informed that on those
coasts New England rum was much preferred to the best Jamaica spirits,
and would fetch a better price. Why should it not be sent there, and a
profitable return be made? Why should a heavy fine and imprisonment be
made the penalty for carrying on a trade so advantageous?

But, he observed, if it was thought advisable that the old act should
continue, he would wish it could be made to meet the purpose altogether,
and prevent the system of slavery entirely, so that equal advantages
might be given to all the inhabitants of the Union; without this, it
would, as it ever had been, remain a great disadvantage. He therefore
moved that the committee rise, in order to postpone the bill. He
believed the House would be better prepared to meet it in a few days.

Mr. NICHOLAS seconded the motion, not but that he was prepared to decide
on it, but that there might be opportunity given to express an opinion.
He really could not understand the gentleman, when he said that our
people being employed in that trade would not add nor diminish the
number exported. This was certainly a wrong calculation. These people
were enslaved for their masters, or to supply some foreign market.
Certainly if the number of purchasers were increased, the number of
slaves would be increased. Surely the gentleman would not wish them
brought into the United States when he talked of their condition being
improved; this was a fact, to be sure, but would it be policy so to do?

But another and an important point was touched upon--that he would wish
the law to be made to meet another object, if it was determined to
prohibit the trade in this country. As a Southern man, Mr. N. said, he
would observe that he was placed in a most unfortunate situation,
indeed, in being obliged, in common with other people of those States,
to keep men in a state of slavery: but he had the consolation to inform
the House, that he believed the people of the Southern States were
wiping off the stain entailed upon them by their predecessors, in
endeavoring to ameliorate the situation of that race of people as much
as possible. This appeared to be an increasing disposition. He hoped the
gentleman would have an opportunity to produce all his arguments on this
subject, in his endeavors either to get the law repealed or to
strengthen it, agreeably to his wish, in order that he might be
satisfied that he would not find an advocate in the House.

Mr. D. FOSTER spoke against the committee rising.

Several sections of the bill were then gone through with, when the
committee rose, and obtained leave to sit again.


MONDAY, April 28.

_The Slave Trade._

Mr. RUTLEDGE moved that the Committee of the Whole, to whom were
referred the bill for preventing the carrying on the slave trade, &c.,
be discharged from further consideration thereof. He conceived it to be
one of the most defective bills that ever was before Congress, because
the object intended was in nowise provided for, or utterly
impracticable.

Mr. BAYARD was of the same opinion. He had taken some pains to examine
the bill, but was obliged to conclude it extremely imperfect. The
objects of the former bill, and which was intended to be improved, were,
to prevent the citizens of the United States having any right in vessels
so employed; and also to prevent the citizens of the United States being
employed on board any such vessels. He trusted that a great majority of
the members of the House would be in favor of those principles, and
effectually promote them. It would indeed be extremely dishonorable in a
country like this, to affirm such a trade, so contrary to all those
principles held dear in the United States, and which ought to be
promoted. His desire was, that a bill should be constructed upon the
true principles of the intent of Congress: so far he thought they might
go, but no farther. To be sure, as the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
J. BROWN) observed, the Government could derive revenue from the
encouragement of this trade, but he thought a more dishonorable item of
revenue could not be established.

The committee was discharged.

Mr. BAYARD then moved that the bill should be referred to a select
committee.

Mr. RUTLEDGE hoped this would not be agreed to; he was not disposed at
this late day of the session to take up any new business that was not of
urgency. He thought it was perfectly unnecessary to make a new act upon
the subject; he believed the former act did every thing that was
necessary or practicable to be done. What more could be wanted than that
persons engaged in this traffic should forfeit their ships and pay a
fine, besides, in many instances, imprisonment of the person offending?
Surely that was all the occasion required. The different States which
had heretofore imported those people into the United States had
established the policy not to import any more; but in addition to this
willing restriction, the Federal Government thought proper to prevent
the trade being carried on, by our ships, to those countries which did
suffer their importation. This was going very far indeed, but so far it
was thought proper to go, to furnish a peace-offering to those
philanthropists whose urgency was great to accomplish the general
destruction of the trade. However, the activity of the people of the
four New England States first engaged them in this profitable traffic;
their produce would bring a good price on the African coast, and why
they might not enjoy the profit of it as well as the English he could
not conceive. He believed it to be impossible effectually to prevent it.
Some gentlemen, indeed, had talked of authorizing our cruisers to seize
vessels of this kind, but, suppose they were confiscated, what was to be
done with their cargoes? They could not be brought into the United
States. Where could they be carried? It was not consistent with the
policy of the West India Islands to suffer them to land there, since it
was their practice to keep these people in bondage, and they did not
want, nor could they suffer free men to inundate those colonies. He knew
of no place where they could be landed but St. Domingo, and as these
people would not have been of those who had procured the freedom of
slaves there--were not of those who had spread devastation and murder
throughout that island, it was probable they would spurn them from their
shores. What then was to be done with them? Surely no gentleman would
wish them to be drowned, and it would be as absurd to think of sending
them back to Sierra Leone! These difficulties he thought insuperable.

Mr. WALN hoped the bill would be committed, and that the provisions of
it would be made effectual to its object. As for the people of
Pennsylvania, he believed he could say they were unanimously in favor of
the trade being put an end to most completely; which was in nowise done
by the law now in force, nor by the bill now proposed. He said it was
well known, that great grievances did exist for want of the due
execution of the law, and much greater than were generally known, and
hence it was that no more was heard of it from the people on this
subject. He had been well informed that great evasions had taken place,
and that this unlawful trade was becoming more and more in use. In the
last year he believed that near forty vessels entered the West Indies
with this illicit species of commerce. In some parts of the United
States, he had been well informed, it was become so popular, that if a
vessel was seized and sold, it was impossible to get any person to bid
for her, and therefore the owner was enabled to repurchase her at a very
low price indeed. It would be much better to repeal the old law, and
open the trade, than to suffer the law to continue when nearly a
nullity. But this he believed was not the disposition of the House; he
believed the House could carry the principle into effect, and he was
sure that a very great majority of the American people would wish them
to do it.

The motion for recommitment was carried by a very large majority, and
three members appointed.

_Military Academy, &c._

Mr. EGGLESTON said, since he found the House so much disposed to prepare
for the close of the session by postponing unnecessary business, he
would move that the bill for establishing a Military Academy, and for
the better organization of the corps of Artillerists and Engineers, be
postponed till the first Monday in December next.

After some observations against the motion, by Messrs. PARKER, CHAMPLIN,
and H. LEE, and in favor of it by Messrs. EGGLESTON and SHEPARD, it was
carried--yeas 64, nays 23.

_Treaty with Great Britain._

The House went into a committee on the bill for the execution of the
27th article of the Treaty with Great Britain.

A motion of Mr. NICHOLAS was under consideration, that no person whose
case was cognizable in any of our courts should be delivered up. This
caused a lengthy debate; it was advocated by Messrs. S. SMITH,
NICHOLSON, and GALLATIN, and opposed by Messrs. BAYARD, DANA, and
DENNIS. It was negatived 45 to 42. After which the committee rose,
obtained leave to sit again, and the House adjourned.


TUESDAY, April 29.

An engrossed bill to promote the manufacture of sheet copper within the
United States, by incorporating a company for carrying on the same, was
read the third time, and passed.


THURSDAY, May 1.

_Appropriation for holding Indian Treaties._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
report of the committee to whom was referred, on the seventh of March
last, the petition of William Hill and others, and, after some time
spent therein, the committee rose and reported two resolutions
thereupon; which were severally twice read, and agreed to by the House,
as follows:

_Resolved_, That the sum of ---- dollars ought to be appropriated by law
to defray the expenses of such treaty or treaties as the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES may deem it expedient to hold with any nation or
nations of Indians south-west of the river Ohio.

_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law, authorizing and
enabling all persons who, under the laws of North Carolina, and in
conformity to the regulations and provisions thereof, have entered,
surveyed, located, or obtained, grants of any of the lands ceded by the
said State to the United States, in such manner as would have vested a
good title under the said State of North Carolina, if such cession had
not been made, to enter upon, occupy, and possess, the same, or to
remove thereto their location from such lands, the titles whereto shall
not be extinguished, whenever, and as soon as the Indian title or claim
to a sufficient portion of the said land shall be extinguished, under
the authority of the United States; and to possess and enjoy the same in
as full and ample manner as if the same had been derived from, or under,
the United States.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the first
resolution; and that Mr. PINCKNEY, Mr. CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, Mr. HENDERSON,
Mr. NICHOLAS, and Mr. THATCHER, do prepare and bring in the same.


SATURDAY, May 3.

_Slave Trade._

The House went into committee on the bill to prohibit carrying on the
slave trade to any foreign country. The committee rose and reported the
bill. On the question, when it should be read a third time, it was
carried for to-day. On the question for its passing, a long and warm
debate ensued.

Several attempts were made to postpone its passing, but to no effect. At
length the question was taken--yeas 67, nays 5, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, George Baer, Theodorus Bailey, Bailey
      Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Phanuel Bishop, Jonathan Brace,
      Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Matthew Clay, William C. C.
      Claiborne, John Condit, William Cooper, Samuel W. Dana,
      John Davenport, Franklin Davenport, John Dennis, William
      Edmond, Joseph Eggleston, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster,
      Dwight Foster, Albert Gallatin, Henry Glenn, Chauncey
      Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Roger
      Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert
      Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, Joseph Heister, William H.
      Hill, David Holmes, James H. Imlay, Aaron Kitchell, Silas
      Lee, Michael Leib, Samuel Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, Lewis R.
      Morris, Peter Muhlenberg, John Nicholas, Abraham Nott,
      Robert Page, Thomas Pinckney, Jonas Platt, Leven Powell,
      John Read, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, John Smilie,
      John Smith, David Stone, Thomas Sumter, George Thatcher,
      John Chew Thomas, John Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
      Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, and Robert
      Williams.

      NAYS.--John Brown, George Dent, Joseph Dickson, Benjamin
      Huger, and John Rutledge, jr.

And the House adjourned.


TUESDAY, May 6.

_Additional Revenue._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the further
report of the Committee of Ways and Means, on the subject of the
revenue; when the first resolution, laying an additional duty of twenty
per centum on wines, after being amended, on motion of Mr. GRISWOLD, to
read as follows, was adopted:

      "_Resolved_, That it is expedient to lay an additional duty
      of twenty per centum on the amount of the present duty upon
      wines imported into the United States, and to vary the
      scale of duties in such manner as to comport with the plan
      of the Secretary of the Treasury."

The second resolution was agreed to without debate as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That it is expedient to lay an additional duty
      of two and a half per centum ad valorem on such goods,
      wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States, as
      are now subject to a duty of ten per centum ad valorem."

The third resolution was opposed by Messrs. HARPER and S. SMITH, and
supported by Mr. GRISWOLD; after which the committee rose, and obtained
leave to sit again.


WEDNESDAY, May 7.

A message from the Senate informed the House, that they have concurred
in the amendments of this House, to the bill relative to the slave trade
with several amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of the
House; also, that the Senate insist on some of their amendments
disagreed to by this House, to the bill supplementary to an act for an
amicable settlement of limits within the State of Georgia, and for
establishing a government in the Mississippi Territory.

_Additional Army._

Mr. HARPER said, that by the terms of enlistment of the additional army,
they were engaged to serve for three years, or until an amicable
adjustment of the differences existing between the United States and
France; from which circumstance, the President was precluded, even if he
knew the preliminaries of peace to be adjusted, from disbanding it until
a treaty should be actually concluded and ratified by the two
Governments--whereby the troops would be kept for perhaps six months in
service unnecessarily. The Navy and other parts of our defensive system,
were upon a different footing. He wished the Army to be placed on a
similar one, and therefore moved the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That it is expedient to authorize the
      President of the United States to discharge the additional
      army thereof, as soon as the state of things between the
      United States and the French Republic will warrant the
      measure."

The resolution was agreed to, and referred to the Committee of the whole
House, to whom was committed the bill from the Senate, to suspend part
of the act entitled "An act to augment the Army of the United States."

_Additional Revenue._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
further report of the Committee of Ways and Means on the subject of
revenue; and the tax on drawbacks being under consideration, Mr.
GRISWOLD and Mr. HARPER again spoke for and against the motion. Mr.
NICHOLAS, Mr. HUGER, and Mr. RANDOLPH, also spoke against the motion;
after which the question was taken and negatived, only 23 votes being in
favor of it.

The third resolution, to lay an additional duty of one half per cent.
per pound on brown sugar and coffee imported into the United States was
opposed by Mr. GRISWOLD, who doubted much the propriety of laying an
additional duty on coffee, and therefore moved to strike out that
article. The motion was opposed by Mr. HARPER, and advocated by Mr.
SEWALL, who was of opinion that this article was frequently smuggled,
and was apprehensive it would be more so, if an additional duty were
laid, and therefore would injure the revenue.

The motion was carried--yeas 38, nays 21.

The question on the resolution as amended, was, after some debate, put
and carried--yeas 45, nays 28.

The fourth resolution reported, to retain two and a half per centum on
all drawbacks allowed for goods re-exported from the United States, in
addition to the sums heretofore directed to be retained by law, and also
on the whole of the additional duty on goods imported in foreign ships
or vessels, was agreed to without debate. The committee then rose, and,
upon the question, Will the House concur with the committee in their
agreement to the resolution laying an additional duty on sugar? the yeas
and nays were called for, and taken--54 to 28.

The other resolutions, as amended, were also agreed to, and the
Committee of Ways and Means directed to bring in a bill or bills
conformable thereto.


THURSDAY, May 8.

_Memory of Washington._

Mr. H. LEE, from the select committee appointed to consider what
measures it would be proper for Congress to adopt for paying suitable
respect to the memory of the man first in peace, first in war, and first
in the hearts of his countrymen--the deceased General WASHINGTON--made a
report, recommending the adoption of the following resolutions:

      "_Resolved_, That the resolution of Congress passed in the
      year 1783, respecting an equestrian statue of General
      WASHINGTON, be carried into immediate execution, and that
      the statue be placed in the centre of an area to be formed
      in front of the Capitol.

      "_Resolved_, That a marble monument be erected by the
      United States in the Capitol at the city of Washington, in
      honor of General WASHINGTON, to commemorate his services,
      and to express the regrets of the American people for their
      irreparable loss.

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to give such directions as may appear to him
      proper, to carry the preceding resolutions into effect; and
      that for the present, the sum of $100,000 be appropriated
      for these purposes."

The resolutions were referred to a Committee of the whole House, and
immediately taken into consideration; when

Mr. HARPER moved to amend the first resolution, by inserting that a
mausoleum be erected for General WASHINGTON, in the city of Washington,
instead of the statue proposed, which was carried; the other resolutions
were negatived, of course.

The committee then rose, and the resolution, as amended by Mr. HARPER,
was agreed to by the House, and a bill ordered to be brought in pursuant
thereto.


FRIDAY, May 9.

_The Treasury Department._

The House went into a committee on the act supplementary to the act
entitled "An act to establish the Treasury Department."

The committee rose and reported the bill--which provided that the
Secretary of the Treasury should lay before Congress, at the
commencement of every session, a report on the subject of finance
together with such plans for improving the revenue as may occur to him.

Mr. GALLATIN and Mr. NICHOLAS opposed the passing of the bill, on
constitutional principles. They observed, that as all money bills were
to originate in the House of Representatives, the Senate had no right to
propose any bill by which that provision was changed; nor could the
Secretary of the Treasury, upon the same ground, propose any thing that
should originate any money bill. Heretofore, it had been usual, when
information was wanting by the House, to call for it from that
department, and the same could be done again.

It was contended by Mr. GRISWOLD and Mr. HARPER, that it was not a power
to report a bill, but merely the state of our finances, which, for want
of due notice, had heretofore been delayed, so as to throw all the most
important business upon the close of the session, whereas, by a
leisurely and mature examination, the Secretary of the Treasury would be
enabled to make a timely and complete report.

The bill passed to its third reading--43 to 39.

_Memory of Washington._

Mr. EVANS, from the committee appointed for that purpose, reported a
bill for erecting a mausoleum for GEORGE WASHINGTON, in the city of
Washington.

The bill provided that it should be one hundred feet square at the base,
and of a proportionate height.

Mr. EGGLESTON wished to hear the estimated price.

Mr. HARPER said he had an estimate from Mr. Latrobe, of Philadelphia,
who was the architect employed on the Pennsylvania Bank, the estimate of
which had rather been over the actual expense; the estimate was that a
pyramid of one hundred feet at the bottom, with nineteen steps, having a
chamber thirty feet square, made of granite, to be taken from the
Potomac, with a marble sarcophagus in the centre, and four marble
pillars on the outside, besides other proportionate ornaments, would
amount to $62,500. He hoped no objection would be made to the price,
since it could not occur on any future occasion, as _another_ WASHINGTON
_would never die_.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought every sense of respect would be as well signified
by a building of less dimensions, and it would be considerable less
expense; he moved to strike out one hundred and insert sixty. After some
debate, this was negatived.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for its third reading.

_Meeting of Congress._

A bill was received from the Senate appointing the time and directing
the place of the next meeting of Congress, which provided that the two
Houses should meet at the city of Washington on the third Monday in
November next.

The House went into committee thereupon, which was reported. On the
question for its third reading, it was carried--yeas 32, nays 32. The
SPEAKER voted in the affirmative, and it was ordered to a third reading
to-morrow.


SATURDAY, May 10.

_Memory of Washington._

The bill for erecting a mausoleum for GEORGE WASHINGTON, in the city of
Washington, was read a third time; and upon the question, shall the bill
pass?

Mr. KITCHELL called the yeas and nays upon it, and proceeded to give his
reasons why he would vote against the bill. He was followed by Mr.
HARPER in favor of it, and Mr. RANDOLPH against it; when the question
was taken, and the bill passed--yeas 54, nays 19, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard,
      Jonathan Brace, John Brown, Gabriel Christie, William C. C.
      Claiborne, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, Franklin
      Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent,
      Joseph Dickson, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Albert
      Gallatin, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich,
      Edwin Gray, Roger Griswold, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe
      Harper, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, James H. Imlay, James
      Jones, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Lee, Silas Lee, Edward
      Livingston, Lewis R. Morris, Peter Muhlenberg, Abraham
      Nott, Robert Page, Jonas Platt, Leven Powell, John Read,
      John Rutledge, jun., Samuel Sewall, James Sheafe, John
      Smith, Samuel Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, George
      Thatcher, John C. Thomas, Richard Thomas, Abram Trigg,
      Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, Lemuel
      Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Theodorus Bailey, Robert Brown, Matthew Clay, John
      Condit, John Davenport, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell,
      Michael Leib, James Linn, Nathaniel Macon, Anthony New,
      John Nicholas, John Randolph, William Shepard, John Smilie,
      Thomas Sumter, John Thompson, John Trigg, and Joseph B.
      Varnum.

_Next Meeting of Congress._

The bill from the Senate appointing the time and directing the place of
the next meeting of Congress, was read a third time; when

Mr. BAYARD moved that it be recommitted to a Committee of the whole
House, for the purpose of altering the time of commencing the session.
After some debate, the motion was negatived.

The question was then put, shall the bill pass? and resolved in the
affirmative--yeas 41, nays 35. The next meeting of Congress will of
course take place on the third Monday in November next.

_Imprisonment for Debt._

The bill making further provision for the relief of persons imprisoned
for debts due the United States, was taken up in committee, agreed to,
and upon the question shall the bill be engrossed for a third reading,
it passed in the affirmative--yeas 36, nays 25. The bill was
subsequently read the third time and passed--yeas 39, nays 27.

[By this bill no person indebted to the United States can be discharged
from prison, unless he shall have suffered two years imprisonment.]

_Elections of President._

A message was received from the Senate informing the House that the
Senate adhere to their disagreement to the amendments to the bill
prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elections of President and
Vice President of the United States, made by this House, and
subsequently insisted on, Whereupon,

Mr. HARPER moved that this House do also adhere to their disagreement to
recede; which was carried, and the bill, consequently, is lost.


MONDAY, May 12.

On motion of Mr. NICHOLAS, the House rescinded a resolution to adjourn
the two Houses this day, and a resolution was adopted that the President
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House should adjourn both Houses
to-morrow. The Senate amended it by proposing Wednesday. On the question
of concurrence, it was carried, 40 to 24.

A message from the Senate, informed the House that the Senate agree to
the resolution for postponing the time of adjournment of the two
Houses, with an amendment; to which they desire the concurrence of this
House.

The House proceeded to consider the amendment proposed by the Senate to
the resolution for postponing the time of adjournment: Whereupon,

_Resolved_, that this House doth agree to the said amendment.


WEDNESDAY, May 14.

_Canadian Refugees._

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed
a bill regulating the grants of land to the Canada and Nova Scotia
refugees, with amendments.

The amendments were taken into consideration, and opposed by Mr.
GALLATIN, who said the object of the Senate was to give the refugees
land worth ten cents an acre, instead of good land worth one dollar per
acre, as proposed by this House; rather than do this, he would give them
nothing.

Mr. LIVINGSTON was of the same opinion, and hoped the House would not
concur. These people had waited eighteen years, and he thought it
extremely hard they should now be put off in this manner.

The amendments were unanimously rejected.

A message from the Senate informed the House that they adhered to the
amendment; whereupon,

Mr. GALLATIN moved that the further consideration of the bill be
postponed till the third Monday in November next, which was carried.

After receiving several messages from the PRESIDENT, notifying the
signing of various bills, there appearing no further business before the
House, on motion of Mr. C. GOODRICH a resolution for the appointment of
a joint committee to wait on the PRESIDENT, and inform him of the
proposed recess, was adopted, and was concurred in by the Senate.

Mr. C. GOODRICH, from the Joint Committee, reported that they had
performed that service, and that the PRESIDENT informed them he had no
other communication to make, except his good wishes for their health and
happiness, and that he wished them a pleasant journey to their
respective homes.

A message having been sent to the Senate to inform them this House was
ready to adjourn, after a few minutes a motion was made for that
purpose, and carried; when

The SPEAKER, after taking an affectionate farewell of the members, and
expressing his wish for their safe return and happiness, during the
recess, adjourned the House till the third Monday in November next, to
meet in the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia.




SIXTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 17, 1800.[55]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, November 17, 1800.

In pursuance of the law of the last session, the second session of the
sixth Congress commenced this day, at the city of Washington, and the
Senate assembled, in their Chamber, at the Capitol.

Present:

JOHN LANGDON and SAMUEL LIVERMORE, from New Hampshire.

DWIGHT FOSTER, from Massachusetts.

JAMES HILLHOUSE and URIAH TRACY, from Connecticut.

THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island.

NATHANIEL CHIPMAN, from Vermont.

JAMES SCHUREMAN, from New Jersey.

WILLIAM HILL WELLS, from Delaware.

JOHN E. HOWARD, from Maryland.

STEPHENS THOMPSON MASON, from Virginia.

JOHN BROWN, from Kentucky.

JOSEPH ANDERSON and WILLIAM COCKE, from Tennessee.

ABRAHAM BALDWIN, from Georgia.

The number of members present not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, the Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.


TUESDAY, November 18.

The number of members present not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, the Senate adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, November 19.

There being no quorum, the Senate adjourned.


THURSDAY, November 20.

There being no quorum present, the Senate adjourned.


FRIDAY, November 21.

TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, from the State of North Carolina; HUMPHREY MARSHALL,
from the State of Kentucky; and GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, from the State of New
York, severally attended.

The credentials of DWIGHT FOSTER, appointed a Senator by the State of
Massachusetts, in place of Samuel Dexter, resigned, were read, and he
took his seat in the Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of
a President, _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and JOHN E.
HOWARD was chosen.

The PRESIDENT administered the oath prescribed by law to Mr. FOSTER.

_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 JOHN E.
HOWARD, President of the Senate, _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 JOHN
E. HOWARD President of the Senate, _pro tempore_.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a
quorum of the House is assembled, and they have appointed a committee on
their part, together with such committee as the Senate may 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
that he may be pleased to make them.

_Resolved_, That the Senate concur in the resolution last recited, and
that Messrs. WELLS and TRACY be the committee on the part of the Senate.

Mr. WELLS reported, from the joint committee last mentioned, that they
had waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; and that he acquainted
the committee that he would meet the two Houses of Congress, at 12
o'clock to-morrow, in the Senate Chamber.


SATURDAY, November 22.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives, that
the Senate are ready to meet them in their Chamber, for the purpose of
receiving the communications from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

The House of Representatives having accordingly taken the seats assigned
them, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the Senate Chamber,
and addressed both Houses of Congress as follows:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      Immediately after the adjournment of Congress at their last
      session in Philadelphia, I gave directions, in compliance
      with the laws, for the removal of the public offices,
      records, and property. These directions have been executed,
      and the public officers have since resided and conducted
      the ordinary business of the Government in this place.

      I congratulate the people of the United States on the
      assembling of Congress at the permanent seat of their
      Government; and I congratulate you, gentlemen, on the
      prospect of a residence not to be changed. Although there
      is cause to apprehend that accommodations are not now so
      complete as might be wished, yet there is great reason to
      believe that this inconvenience will cease with the present
      session.

      It would be unbecoming the Representatives of this nation
      to assemble, for the first time, in this solemn temple,
      without looking up to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe,
      and imploring his blessing.

      May this Territory be the residence of virtue and
      happiness! In this city may that piety and virtue, that
      wisdom and magnanimity, that constancy and self-government
      which adorned the great character whose name it bears, be
      for ever held in veneration! Here, and throughout our
      country, may simple manners, pure morals, and true religion
      flourish for ever!

      It is with you, gentlemen, to consider whether the local
      powers over the District of Columbia, vested by the
      constitution in the Congress of the United States, shall be
      immediately exercised. If, in your opinion, this important
      trust ought now to be executed, you cannot fail, while
      performing it, to take into view the future probable
      situation of the Territory for the happiness of which you
      are about to provide. You will consider it as the Capital
      of a great nation, advancing, with unexampled rapidity, in
      arts, in commerce, in wealth, and in population; and
      possessing, within itself, those energies and resources
      which, if not thrown away, or lamentably misdirected, will
      secure to it a long course of prosperity and
      self-government.

      In compliance with a law of the last session of Congress,
      the officers and soldiers of the temporary army have been
      discharged. It affords real pleasure to recollect the
      honorable testimony they gave of the patriotic motives
      which brought them into the service of their country, by
      the readiness and regularity with which they returned to
      the station of private citizens.

      It is, in every point of view, of such primary importance
      to carry the laws into prompt and faithful execution, and
      to render that part of the administration of justice which
      the constitution and laws devolve on the federal courts, as
      convenient to the people as may consist with their present
      circumstances, that I cannot omit once more to recommend to
      your serious consideration the judiciary system of the
      United States. No subject is more interesting than this to
      the public happiness, and to none can those improvements
      which may have been suggested by experience be more
      beneficially applied.

      A Treaty of Amity and Commerce with the King of Prussia has
      been concluded and ratified. The ratifications have been
      exchanged, and I have directed the treaty to be promulgated
      by proclamation.

      The difficulties which suspended the execution of the sixth
      article of our Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation,
      with Great Britain, have not yet been removed. The
      negotiation on this subject is still pending. As it must be
      for the interest and honor of both nations to adjust this
      difference with good faith, I indulge confidently the
      expectation that the sincere endeavors of the Government of
      the United States to bring it to an amicable termination
      will not be disappointed.

      The Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary from
      the United States to France were received by the First
      Consul with the respect due to their character; and three
      persons with equal powers were appointed to treat with
      them.[56] Although, at the date of the last official
      intelligence, the negotiation had not terminated, yet it is
      to be hoped that our efforts to effect an accommodation
      will at length meet with a success proportioned to the
      sincerity with which they have been so often repeated.

      While our best endeavors for the preservation of harmony
      with all nations will continue to be used, the experience
      of the world, our own experience, admonish us of the
      insecurity of trusting too confidently to their success. We
      cannot, without committing a dangerous imprudence, abandon
      those measures of self-protection which are adapted to our
      situation, and to which, notwithstanding our pacific
      policy, the violence and injustice of others may again
      compel us to resort. While our vast extent of sea-coast,
      the commercial and agricultural habits of our people, the
      great capital they will continue to trust on the ocean,
      suggest the system of defence which will be most beneficial
      to ourselves, our distance from Europe, and our resources
      for maritime strength, will enable us to employ it with
      effect. Seasonable and systematic arrangements, so far as
      our resources will justify, for a navy, adapted to
      defensive war, and which may, in case of necessity, be
      quickly brought into use, seem to be as much recommended by
      a wise and true economy as by a just regard for our future
      tranquillity, for the safety of our shores, and for the
      protection of our property committed to the ocean.

      The present Navy of the United States, called suddenly into
      existence by a great national exigency, has raised us in
      our own esteem; and, by the protection afforded to our
      commerce, has effected, to the extent of our expectations,
      the objects for which it was created.

      In connection with a navy ought to be contemplated the
      fortification of some of our principal seaports and
      harbors. A variety of considerations, which will readily
      suggest themselves, urge an attention to this measure of
      precaution. To give security to our principal ports,
      considerable sums have already been expended, but the works
      remain incomplete. It is for Congress to determine whether
      additional appropriations shall be made, in order to render
      competent to the intended purposes the fortifications which
      have been commenced.

      The manufacture of arms within the United States still
      invites the attention of the national Legislature. At a
      considerable expense to the public this manufacture has
      been brought to such a state of maturity as, with continued
      encouragement, will supersede the necessity of future
      importations from foreign countries.

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

      I shall direct the estimates of the appropriations
      necessary for the ensuing year, together with an account of
      the public revenue and expenditure, to a late period, to be
      laid before you. I observe, with much satisfaction, the
      product of the revenue during the present year has been
      more considerable than during any former equal period. This
      result affords conclusive evidence of the great resources
      of this country, and of the wisdom and efficiency of the
      measures which have been adopted by Congress for the
      protection of commerce and preservation of public credit.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      As one of the grand community of nations, our attention is
      irresistibly drawn to the important scenes which surround
      us. If they have exhibited an uncommon portion of calamity,
      it is the province of humanity to deplore, and of wisdom to
      avoid, the causes which may have produced it. If, turning
      our eyes homeward, we find reason to rejoice at the
      prospect which presents itself; if we perceive the interior
      of our country prosperous, free, and happy; if all enjoy in
      safety, under the protection of laws emanating only from
      the general will, the fruits of their own labor, we ought
      to fortify and cling to those institutions which have been
      the source of such real felicity; and resist, with
      unabating perseverance, the progress of those dangerous
      innovations which may diminish their influence.

      To your patriotism, gentlemen, has been confided the
      honorable duty of guarding the public interests; and, while
      the past is to your country a sure pledge that it will be
      faithfully discharged, permit me to assure you that your
      labors to promote the general happiness will receive from
      me the most zealous co-operation.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _Nov. 22, 1800_.

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES having retired, the two Houses
separated.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. TRACY, MORRIS, and BALDWIN, 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.

It was further ordered that the Speech be printed for the use of the
Senate.


MONDAY, November 24.

JONATHAN DAYTON, from the State of New Jersey, attended.

Mr. TRACY, from the committee appointed to draft an Address in answer to
the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses of
Congress, at the opening of the session, made a report, which was read,
and ordered to lie for consideration.


TUESDAY, November 25.

WILSON CARY NICHOLAS, from the State of Virginia, attended.

The Senate took into consideration the report of the committee of the
draft of an Address in answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES to both Houses of Congress, at the opening of the session;
which, being read in paragraphs, and amended, was adopted, as follows:

      _To the President of the United States_:

      SIR: Impressed with the important truth that the hearts of
      rulers and people are in the hand of the Almighty, the
      Senate of the United States most cordially join in your
      invocations for appropriate blessings upon the Government
      and people of this Union.

      We meet you, sir, and the other branch of the national
      Legislature in the city which is honored by the name of our
      late hero and sage, the illustrious WASHINGTON, with
      sensations and emotions which exceed our power of
      description.

      While we congratulate ourselves on the convention of the
      Legislature at the permanent seat of Government, and
      ardently hope that permanence and stability may be
      communicated as well to the Government itself as to its
      seat, our minds are irresistibly led to deplore the death
      of him who bore so honorable and efficient a part in the
      establishment of both. Great indeed would have been our
      gratification if his sum of earthly happiness had been
      completed by seeing the Government thus peaceably convened
      at this place; but we derive consolation from a belief that
      the moment in which we were destined to experience the loss
      we deplore, was fixed by that Being whose counsels cannot
      err; and from a hope that, since in this seat of
      Government, which bears his name, his earthly remains will
      be deposited, the members of Congress, and all who inhabit
      the city, with these memorials before them, will retain his
      virtues in lively recollection, and make his patriotism,
      morals, and piety, models for imitation. And permit us to
      add, sir, that it is not among the least of our
      consolations that you, who have been his companion and
      friend from the dawning of our national existence, and
      trained in the same school of exertion to effect our
      independence, are still preserved by a gracious Providence
      in health and activity to exercise the functions of Chief
      Magistrate.

      The question whether the legal powers over the District of
      Columbia, vested by the constitution in the Congress of the
      United States, shall be immediately exercised, is of great
      importance, and in deliberating upon it, we shall naturally
      be led to weigh the attending circumstances and every
      probable consequence of the measures which may be proposed.

      The several subjects for Legislative consideration,
      contained in your Speech to both Houses of Congress, shall
      receive from the Senate all the attention which they can
      give, when contemplating those objects, both in respect to
      their national importance, and the additional weight that
      is given them by your recommendation.

      We deprecate, with you, sir, all spirit of innovation, from
      whatever quarter it may arise, which may impair the sacred
      bond that connects the different parts of this empire; and
      we trust, that, under the protection of Divine Providence,
      the wisdom and virtue of the citizens of the United States
      will deliver our national compact unimpaired to a grateful
      posterity.

      From past experience, it is impossible for the Senate of
      the United States to doubt of your zealous co-operation
      with the Legislature in every effort to promote the general
      happiness and tranquillity of the Union.

      Accept, sir, our warmest wishes for your health and
      happiness.

                          JOHN E. HOWARD,
                          _President of the Senate, pro tempore_.

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at what time
and place it will be convenient for him that the Address of the Senate,
in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress at the opening of the
session, shall be presented; and that Messrs. TRACY, MORRIS, and
BALDWIN, be this committee.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have resolved, that two Chaplains be appointed to Congress, for
the present session, one by each House, to interchange weekly; in which
they desire the concurrence of the Senate.

The Senate took into consideration the resolution last mentioned; and

_Resolved_, That they do concur therein with the following amendment:
after the word "Chaplains," insert "of different denominations."


WEDNESDAY, November 26.

Mr. TRACY reported, from the committee yesterday appointed for the
purpose, that they had waited on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and
that he would 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
accordingly: and the President of the Senate, in their name, presented
the Address yesterday agreed to.

To which the PRESIDENT made the following reply:

      _Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      For this excellent Address, so respectful to the memory of
      my illustrious predecessor, which I receive from the Senate
      of the United States, at this time, and in this place, with
      peculiar satisfaction, I pray you to accept of my unfeigned
      acknowledgments. With you, I ardently hope, that permanence
      and stability will be communicated as well to the
      Government itself, as to its beautiful and commodious seat.
      With you I deplore the death of that hero and sage who bore
      so honorable and efficient a part in the establishment of
      both. Great indeed would have been my gratification, if his
      sum of earthly happiness had been completed by seeing the
      Government thus peaceably convened at this place, himself
      at its head. But, while we submit to the decision of
      Heaven, whose councils are inscrutable to us, we cannot but
      hope, that the members of Congress, the officers of
      Government, and all who inhabit the city or the country,
      will retain his virtues in lively recollection, and make
      his patriotism, morals, and piety, models for imitation.

      I thank you, gentlemen, for your assurance that the several
      subjects for legislative consideration, recommended in my
      communication to both Houses, shall receive from the Senate
      a deliberate and candid attention.

      With you, gentlemen, I sincerely deprecate all spirit of
      innovation which may weaken the sacred bond that connects
      the different parts of this nation and Government; and with
      you I trust, that, under the protection of Divine
      Providence, the wisdom and virtue of our citizens will
      deliver our national compact unimpaired to a free,
      prosperous, happy, and grateful posterity. To this end it
      is my fervent prayer, that, in this city, the fountains of
      wisdom may be always open, and the streams of eloquence for
      ever flow. Here may the youth of this extensive country for
      ever look up without disappointment, not only to the
      monuments and memorials of the dead, but to the examples of
      the living, in the members of Congress and officers of
      Government, for finished models of all those virtues,
      graces, talents, and accomplishments, which constitute the
      dignity of human nature, and lay the only foundation for
      the prosperity or duration of empires.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      CITY OF WASHINGTON, _Nov. 26, 1800_.

The Senate returned to their own Chamber; and the reply of the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES having been read, adjourned.


FRIDAY, November 28.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, Vice President of the United States, and President of
the Senate, attended.


MONDAY, December 1.

JESSE FRANKLIN, from the State of North Carolina, attended.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter from JAMES LLOYD, a Senator
from the State of Maryland, resigning his seat in the Senate; which was
read.


TUESDAY, December 2.

JACOB READ, from the State of South Carolina, and JAMES GUNN, from the
State of Georgia, severally attended.


THURSDAY, December 4.

RAY GREENE, from the State of Rhode Island, and ELIJAH PAINE, from the
State of Vermont, severally attended.


MONDAY, December 15.

WILLIAM HINDMAN, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of
Maryland, for the remainder of the term for which JAMES LLOYD was
elected, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in
the Senate.


FRIDAY, December 19.

JONATHAN MASON, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of
Massachusetts, in place of BENJAMIN GOODHUE, resigned, produced his
credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the Senate.


MONDAY, January 5, 1801.

_Mississippi Territorial Laws._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      I transmit to both Houses of Congress, for their
      information and consideration, copies of laws enacted by
      the Governor and Judges of the Mississippi Territory, from
      the 30th of June until the 31st of December, A. D.
      1799.[57]

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _Jan. 1, 1801_.

The Message was read and ordered to lie for consideration.


WEDNESDAY, January 7.

The Senate took into consideration the report of the committee to whom
was referred so much of the PRESIDENT'S Speech as relates to the
exercise of the local powers over the District of Columbia, vested by
the constitution in the Congress of the United States; which is,

      "That, by the cession of the several States of Virginia and
      Maryland, and the acceptance thereof by Congress, the said
      District has become the permanent Seat of the Government of
      the United States;

      "That the powers of the said States to legislate within
      said District have wholly ceased;

      "And that the sole power of legislation over the same is
      thereupon exclusively vested in Congress."

And, on motion to agree thereto, a motion was made for the previous
question, to wit: "Shall the main question be now put?" and which passed
in the negative.

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill concerning the
District of Columbia; and, after debate,

_Ordered_, That it be recommitted to the original committee, further to
consider and report thereon.


THURSDAY, January 8.

JOHN ARMSTRONG, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of
New York, in place of JOHN LAURANCE, resigned, produced his credentials,
was qualified, and took his seat in the Senate.


MONDAY, January 12.

WILLIAM BINGHAM and JAMES ROSS, from the State of Pennsylvania,
severally attended.


THURSDAY, January 15.

Mr. NICHOLAS, from the committee on the bill to erect a mausoleum for
GEORGE WASHINGTON, reported amendments; which were read, and ordered to
lie for consideration.


TUESDAY, January 20.

The Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business.


WEDNESDAY, January 21.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter from the Commissioners of the
City of Washington, addressed to both Houses of Congress requesting the
assignment of a room in the Capitol for the temporary accommodation of
the Supreme Judicial Court of the United States; which was read.

_Resolved_, That the Secretary be directed to inform the Commissioners
of the City of Washington that the Senate consent to the accommodation
of the Supreme Court in one of the committee rooms, as proposed in their
letter.


THURSDAY, January 22.

_Mausoleum for Washington._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on
the bill to erect a mausoleum for GEORGE WASHINGTON; and on motion to
agree to the report, and to strike out, after the word "That,"
immediately following the enacting clause, the whole of the bill, for
the purpose of inserting as follows:

      "In testimony of the respect and gratitude of the citizens
      of the United States to GEORGE WASHINGTON, and for carrying
      into effect the resolution of Congress of the 24th day of
      December, 1799, to commemorate the great events of his
      military and political life, there shall be and hereby is
      appropriated a sum not exceeding ---- thousand dollars, to
      be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury of the United
      States, not otherwise appropriated.

      "_And be it further enacted_, That ---- ---- shall be and
      hereby are, empowered, to fix on a plan and make all
      contracts and engagements for payment of moneys, not
      exceeding in the whole the aforesaid sum of ---- dollars;
      and to adopt all other measures necessary and proper for
      the due execution of this act, as to them shall seem
      expedient."

And it was agreed to divide the motion, and that the question be taken
on striking out, which passed in the affirmative--yeas 16, nays 12, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster, D. Foster, Franklin,
      Hillhouse, Langdon, Marshall, S. T. Mason, Nicholas, and
      Schureman.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Chipman, Greene, Hindman, Howard, Latimer,
      Livermore, J. Mason, Morris, Paine, Read, Tracy, and Wells.


MONDAY, January 26.

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill for erecting a
mausoleum for GEORGE WASHINGTON; and having agreed to the amendment
reported by the committee, and filled up one of the blanks,

_Ordered_, That this bill pass to third reading as amended.


WEDNESDAY, February 4.

_Mausoleum for Washington._

The Senate took into consideration the amendment reported by the
committee, on the bill for erecting a mausoleum for GEORGE WASHINGTON;
which was agreed to.

And on the final passage of the bill as amended, the question was
determined in the affirmative--yeas 20, nays 9, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Chipman, Dayton, T. Foster, Dwight Foster, Franklin,
      Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Livermore, Marshall, S.
      T. Mason, Nicholas, Paine, and Schureman.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Cocke, Gunn, Hindman, Latimer, J.
      Mason, Morris, Read, and Ross.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass with amendments.


MONDAY, February 9.

_Counting Votes for President of the United States._

On motion, it was

_Resolved_, That the Senate will be ready to receive the House of
Representatives in the Senate Chamber on Wednesday next, at twelve
o'clock, for the purpose of being present at the opening and counting
the votes for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. That one person be
appointed a teller on the part of the Senate, to make a list of the
votes for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 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, which shall be entered on the
journals, and if it shall appear that a choice has been made, agreeably
to the constitution, such entry on the journals shall be deemed a
sufficient declaration thereof.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives of
this resolution.


TUESDAY, February 10.

On motion that when the two Houses shall proceed to opening and counting
the votes for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, no person shall be
admitted into the gallery, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 16, nays
10, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Brown, Chipman, Dayton, T. Foster, Dwight
      Foster, Hillhouse, Hindman, Latimer, J. Mason, Morris,
      Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke,
      Franklin, Langdon, Livermore, Marshall, S. T. Mason, and
      Nicholas.

A message was received from the House of Representatives informing the
Senate that they have passed a resolution, which the Clerk was directed
to bring to the Senate.

The resolution was read, as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That this House will attend in the Chamber of
      the Senate on Wednesday next, at 12 o'clock, for the
      purpose of being present at the opening and counting of the
      votes for PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
      STATES; that Messrs. RUTLEDGE and NICHOLAS be appointed
      tellers, to act jointly with the teller appointed on the
      part of the Senate, to make a list of the votes for
      PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 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, which shall be entered on the journals, and if
      it shall appear that a choice has been made, agreeably to
      the constitution, such entry on the journals shall be
      deemed a sufficient declaration thereof."

_Ordered_, That Mr. WELLS be a teller on the part of the Senate for the
purpose expressed in the above resolution.


WEDNESDAY, February 11.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives that
the Senate is ready to meet them in the Senate Chamber, for the purpose
of being present at the opening and counting the votes for PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.

The two Houses of Congress accordingly assembled in the Senate Chamber,
and the certificates of the Electors of sixteen States were, by the VICE
PRESIDENT, opened and delivered to the tellers appointed for the
purpose, who, having examined and ascertained the number of votes,
presented a list thereof to the VICE PRESIDENT, which was read. (_For
List see Table on next page._)

Whereupon the VICE PRESIDENT declared that the result of the votes, as
delivered by the tellers, was that

THOMAS JEFFERSON, of Va., had         73
AARON BURR, of N. Y., had             73
JOHN ADAMS, of Mass., had             65
CHAS. C. PINCKNEY, of S. C., had      64
JOHN JAY, of N. Y., had                1

---------------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+
    STATES.    |Thomas   |  Aaron  |  John   |Charles C.|  John   |
               |Jefferson|  Burr   |  Adams  |Pinckney  |  Jay.   |
---------------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+
New Hampshire  |    -    |    -    |    6    |    6     |         |
Massachusetts  |    -    |    -    |   16    |   16     |         |
Rhode Island   |    -    |    -    |    4    |    3     |    1    |
Connecticut    |    -    |    -    |    9    |    9     |         |
Vermont        |    -    |    -    |    4    |    4     |         |
New York       |   12    |   12    |         |          |         |
New Jersey     |    -    |    -    |    7    |    7     |         |
Pennsylvania   |    8    |    8    |    7    |    7     |         |
Delaware       |    -    |    -    |    3    |    3     |         |
Maryland       |    5    |    5    |    5    |    5     |         |
Virginia       |   21    |   21    |         |          |         |
Kentucky       |    4    |    4    |         |          |         |
North Carolina |    8    |    8    |    4    |    4     |         |
Tennessee      |    3    |    3    |         |          |         |
South Carolina |    8    |    8    |         |          |         |
Georgia        |    4    |    4    |         |          |         |
               |   --    |   --    |   --    |   --     |   --    |
               |   73    |   73    |   65    |   64     |    1    |
---------------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+

The whole number of Electors who had voted were one hundred and
thirty-eight, of which number THOMAS JEFFERSON and AARON BURR had a
majority; but the number of those voting for them being equal, no choice
was made by the people; and that, consequently, the remaining duties
devolve on the House of Representatives.

On which, the House of Representatives repaired to their own Chamber;
and the Senate adjourned.


MONDAY, February 16.

_Public Property._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      I wish to know the pleasure of Congress, and request their
      direction, concerning the disposition of the property of
      the United States now in my possession; whether I shall
      deliver it into the hands of the Heads of Departments, or
      of the Commissioners of the city of Washington, or of a
      committee of Congress, or to any other persons Congress may
      appoint, to be delivered into the hands of my successor, or
      whether I shall present it myself to the PRESIDENT OF THE
      UNITED STATES on the 4th of March next. Any of these modes
      will be agreeable to me.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _Feb_. 16, 1801.

The Message was read and ordered to lie on the table.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter from JAMES SCHUREMAN, a Senator
from the State of New Jersey, resigning his seat; which was read.

_Resolved_, That the VICE PRESIDENT be requested to notify the Executive
of the State of New Jersey that JAMES SCHUREMAN hath resigned his seat
in the Senate.


WEDNESDAY, February 18.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have chosen THOMAS JEFFERSON, of Virginia, President of the United
States, for the term commencing on the 4th of March next.

On motion, it was

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed, to join such committee as may
be appointed on the part of the House of Representatives, to consider
whether any, and, if any, what measures ought to be adopted for the
further accommodation of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, for the
term commencing the 4th day of March next, to report by bill, bills, or
otherwise; and that Messrs. NICHOLAS, TRACY, and BALDWIN, be the
committee on the part of the Senate.

_Notification of Election to Aaron Burr._

On motion, it was

_Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be requested to
cause to be transmitted to AARON BURR, Esq., of New York, Vice President
elect of the United States, notification of his election to that office,
and that the President of the Senate do make out and sign a certificate,
in the words following, viz:

      "BE IT KNOWN, That the Senate and House of Representatives
      of the United States of America, being convened at the city
      of Washington, on the second Wednesday in February, A. D.
      1801, the underwritten Vice President of the United States
      and President of the Senate, did, in presence of said
      Senate and House of Representatives, open all the
      certificates and count all the votes of the electors for a
      President; whereupon it appeared that THOMAS JEFFERSON, of
      Virginia, and AARON BURR, of New York, had a majority of
      the votes of the electors and an equal number of votes; in
      consequence of which the House of Representatives proceeded
      to the choice of a President, and have this day notified to
      the Senate that THOMAS JEFFERSON has by them been duly
      chosen President: by all of which it appears that AARON
      BURR, Esq., of New York, is duly elected, agreeably to the
      constitution, Vice President of the United States of
      America.

      "In witness thereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal,
      this 18th day of February, 1801.

                          "THOMAS JEFFERSON."

And that the President of the Senate do cause the certificate aforesaid
to be laid before the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, with this
resolution.


MONDAY, February 23.

Mr. PINCKNEY, a Senator for the State of South Carolina, attended.


THURSDAY, February 26.

The bill to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from carrying on any
business of trade, commerce, or navigation, was read the second time,
and referred to Messrs. LANGDON, NICHOLAS, and DAYTON, to consider and
report thereon.


SATURDAY, February 28.

_Retiring of the Vice President._

The VICE PRESIDENT addressed the Senate as follows:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      To give the usual opportunity of appointing a President,
      _pro tempore_, I now propose to retire from the chair of
      the Senate; and, as the time is near at hand when the
      relations will cease which have for some time subsisted
      between this honorable House and myself, I beg leave,
      before I withdraw, to return them my grateful thanks for
      all the instances of attention and respect with which they
      have been pleased to honor me. In the discharge of my
      functions here, it has been my conscientious endeavor to
      observe impartial justice, without regard to persons or
      subjects; and if I have failed of impressing this on the
      mind of the Senate, it will be to me a circumstance of the
      deepest regret. I may have erred at times--no doubt I have
      erred--this is the law of human nature. For honest errors,
      however, indulgence may be hoped.

      I owe to truth and justice, at the same time, to declare,
      that the habits of order and decorum, which so strongly
      characterize the proceedings of the Senate, have rendered
      the umpirage of their President an office of little
      difficulty; that, in times and on questions which have
      severely tried the sensibilities of the House, calm and
      temperate discussion has rarely been disturbed by
      departures from order.

      Should the support which I have received from the Senate,
      in the performance of my duties here, attend me into the
      new station to which the public will has transferred me, I
      shall consider it as commencing under the happiest
      auspices.

      With these expressions of my dutiful regard to the Senate
      as a body, I ask leave to mingle my particular wishes for
      the health and happiness of the individuals who compose it,
      and to tender them my cordial and respectful adieu.

After which the VICE PRESIDENT retired.

Whereupon the Senate proceeded to the election of a President _pro
tempore_, as the constitution provides; and JAMES HILLHOUSE was duly
elected.

_Ordered_, That the Address of the VICE PRESIDENT, made this day, taking
leave of the Senate, be referred to a committee, with instruction to
prepare and report the draft of an Address in answer thereto; and that
Messrs. MORRIS, J. MASON, and DAYTON, be the committee.


MONDAY, March 2.

_Answer to the Vice President's Valedictory._

Mr. MORRIS, from the committee appointed the 28th ultimo, on the Address
of the VICE PRESIDENT, made, on his taking leave of the Senate, reported
an answer thereto, which was read, as follows:

      SIR: While we congratulate you on those expressions of the
      public will, which called you to the first office in the
      United States, we cannot but lament the loss of that
      intelligence, attention, and impartiality, with which you
      have presided over our deliberations. The Senate feel
      themselves much gratified by the sense you have been
      pleased to express of their support in the performance of
      your late duties. Be persuaded that it will never be
      withheld from a Chief Magistrate, who, in the exercise of
      his office, shall be influenced by a due regard to the
      honor and interests of our country.

      In the confidence that your official conduct will be
      directed to these great objects, a confidence derived from
      past events, we repeat to you, sir, the assurance of our
      constitutional support in your future administration.

On the motion to strike out these words: "a confidence derived from past
events," it passed in the negative--yeas 9, nays 19, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Chipman, Hindman, Howard, Livermore, Paine,
      Read, Ross, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster, D. Foster, Franklin,
      Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Marshall, S. T. Mason, J. Mason,
      Morris, Nicholas, and Pinckney.

And the report was agreed to.

_Ordered_, That the committee who drafted the answer to the Address,
wait on the President elect of the United States, and present it to him.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from the President elect
of the United States; which was read, as follows:

                                WASHINGTON, _March 2, 1801_.

      SIR: I beg leave, through you, to inform the honorable the
      Senate of the United States, that I propose to take the
      oath which the constitution prescribes to the President of
      the United States, before he enters on the execution of his
      office, on Wednesday, the 4th instant, at 12 o'clock, in
      the Senate Chamber.

      I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect, sir,
      your most obedient and most humble servant,

                          TH. JEFFERSON.

      The PRESIDENT _pro tempore of the Senate_.

_Ordered_, That the foregoing letter be referred to Messrs. MORRIS,
DAYTON, and ROSS, to report thereon.

_Ordered_, That the committee who were appointed to take into
consideration the letter from the President elect of the United States,
of this day, be discharged.

A motion was made as follows:

      The President elect of the United States having informed
      the Senate that he proposes to take the oath which the
      constitution prescribes to the President of the United
      States before he enters on the execution of his office, on
      Wednesday, the 4th instant, at 12 o'clock, in the Senate
      Chamber:

      _Ordered_, That the Secretary communicate that information
      to the House of Representatives; that seats be provided for
      such members of the House of Representatives and such of
      the public Ministers as may think proper to attend; and
      that the gallery be opened to the citizens of the United
      States.

And the motion was agreed to.


TUESDAY, March 3.

_Mausoleum for Washington._

The Senate took into consideration the amendments to the amendments on
the bill to erect a mausoleum for GEORGE WASHINGTON; and on motion to
postpone the further consideration of this bill until the first Monday
in December next, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 14, nays 13, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Brown, Cocke,
      Gunn, Hindman, J. Mason, Morris, Pinckney, Read, Ross,
      Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Chipman, Dayton, T. Foster,
      Franklin, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Livermore,
      Marshall, Nicholas, and Paine.

The bill to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from being concerned in
trade or commerce, was read the third time and passed.

Mr. NICHOLAS, from the committee on the bill providing for a Naval Peace
Establishment, reported amendments, which, being agreed to, the bill was
read the third time by unanimous consent, and passed.

Mr. MORRIS, from the committee appointed to wait on the President elect
of the United States, and present him with the answer of the Senate to
his Address on taking leave, communicated his reply, which was read as
follows:

      GENTLEMEN: I receive with due sensibility the
      congratulations of the Senate on being called to the first
      Executive office of our Government; and I accept, with
      great satisfaction, their assurances of support in whatever
      regards the honor and interest of our country. Knowing no
      other object in the discharge of my public duties, their
      confidence in my future conduct, derived from past events,
      shall not be disappointed, so far as my judgment may enable
      me to discern those objects.

      The approbation they are so good as to express of my
      conduct in the chair of the Senate, is highly gratifying to
      me; and I pray them to accept my humble thanks for these
      declarations of it.

                          TH. JEFFERSON.

      MARCH, 3, 1801.


TUESDAY EVENING, 6 o'clock.

AARON OGDEN, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New
Jersey, in place of James Schureman, resigned, produced his credentials,
was qualified, and took his seat in the Senate.

_Adjournment._

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House concur in the resolution of the Senate appointing a joint
committee to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him
of the proposed adjournment of the two Houses of Congress, and have
appointed a committee on their part. And that the House of
Representatives, having completed the business before them, are about to
adjourn without day.

Mr. READ reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and that he replied, that he had nothing
further to communicate to Congress, except his best wishes for the
health and happiness of its members respectively.

The Senate then adjourned without day.




SPECIAL SESSION.


WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1801.

      _To the Senators of the United States, respectively_:

      SIR: It appearing to me proper and necessary for the public
      service, that the Senate of the United States should be
      convened on Wednesday the 4th of March next, you are
      desired to attend in the Chamber of the Senate on that day,
      at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, to receive and act upon any
      communications which the President of the United States may
      then lay before you touching their interests, and to do and
      consider all other things which may be proper and necessary
      for the public service, for the Senate to do and consider.

                          JOHN ADAMS,
                          _President of the United States_.

      JANUARY 30, 1801.

In conformity to the summons from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
above recited, the Senate assembled in their Chamber.

PRESENT:

AARON BURR, Vice President of the United States, and President of the
Senate.

SAMUEL LIVERMORE, and JAMES SHEAFE, from New Hampshire.

DWIGHT FOSTER, and JONATHAN MASON, from Massachusetts.

THEODORE FOSTER and RAY GREENE, from Rhode Island.

URIAH TRACY and JAMES HILLHOUSE, from Connecticut.

NATHANIEL CHIPMAN, from Vermont.

GOUVERNEUR MORRIS and JOHN ARMSTRONG, from New York.

JONATHAN DAYTON and AARON OGDEN, from New Jersey.

JAMES ROSS and PETER MUHLENBERG, from Pennsylvania.

WILLIAM HILL WELLS and SAMUEL WHITE, from Delaware.

JOHN E. HOWARD, from Maryland.

STEVENS T. MASON and WILSON CARY NICHOLAS, from Virginia.

JOHN BROWN, from Kentucky.

JESSE FRANKLIN and DAVID STONE, from North Carolina.

JOSEPH ANDERSON and WILLIAM COCKE, from Tennessee.

CHARLES PINCKNEY, from South Carolina.

ABRAHAM BALDWIN, from Georgia.

Mr. HILLHOUSE administered the oath of office to the VICE PRESIDENT, who
took the chair, and the credentials of the following members were read:

Of Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. MUHLENBERG, Mr. SHEAFE, Mr. STONE, Mr. TRACY, and
Mr. WHITE.

And the oath of office was administered to Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr.
MUHLENBERG, Mr. SHEAFE, Mr. STONE, and Mr. WHITE, by the VICE PRESIDENT.

Exception being taken to the credentials of the Hon. Mr. TRACY, a
Senator from the State of Connecticut, a debate ensued; and, on motion
that he be admitted to take the oath required by the constitution, it
passed in the affirmative--yeas 13, nays 10, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Chipman, Dayton, Dwight Foster, Hillhouse,
      Howard, Livermore, J. Mason, Morris, Ogden, Ross, Sheafe,
      Wells, and White.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Brown, Cocke,
      S. T. Mason, Muhlenberg, Nicholas, Pinckney, and Stone.

And the oath was accordingly administered to Mr. TRACY by the VICE
PRESIDENT.

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, attended by the Heads of
Departments, the Marshal of the District, his officers and other
gentlemen, came into the Senate Chamber and took his seat in the chair
usually occupied by the VICE PRESIDENT. The VICE PRESIDENT took a
separate seat on the right of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and
the Chief Justice of the United States on the left. After a short pause,
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES rose, and addressed the audience as
follows:

      _Friends and fellow-citizens_:

      Called upon to undertake the duties of the first Executive
      office of our country, I avail myself of the presence of
      that portion of my fellow-citizens which is here assembled,
      to express my grateful thanks for the favor with which they
      have been pleased to look towards me, to declare a sincere
      consciousness that the task is above my talents, and that I
      approach it with those anxious and awful presentiments
      which the greatness of the charge, and the weakness of my
      powers, so justly inspire. A rising nation spread over a
      wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the
      rich productions of their industry, engaged in commerce
      with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing
      rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye; when I
      contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor,
      the happiness, and the hopes, of this beloved country
      committed to the issue and the auspices of this day, I
      shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the
      magnitude of the undertaking. Utterly indeed should I
      despair, did not the presence of many whom I here see
      remind me, that, in the other high authorities provided by
      our constitution, I shall find resources of wisdom, of
      virtue, and of zeal, on which to rely under all
      difficulties. To you, then, gentlemen, who are charged with
      the sovereign functions of legislation, and to those
      associated with you, I look with encouragement for that
      guidance and support which may enable us to steer with
      safety the vessel in which we are all embarked, amidst the
      conflicting elements of a troubled world.

      During the contest of opinion through which we have passed,
      the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes
      worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to
      think freely, and to speak and to write what they think;
      but this being now decided by the voice of the nation,
      announced according to the rules of the constitution, all
      will of course arrange themselves under the will of the
      law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All
      too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though
      the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that
      will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority
      possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect,
      and to violate would be oppression. Let us then,
      fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us
      restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection
      without which, liberty, and even life itself, are but
      dreary things. And let us reflect, that, having banished
      from our land that religious intolerance under which
      mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained
      little, if we countenance a political intolerance, as
      despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody
      persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the
      ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated
      man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long lost
      liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the
      billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore;
      that this should be more felt and feared by some and less
      by others; and should divide opinions as to measures of
      safety; but every difference of opinion is not a difference
      of principle. We have called by different names brethren of
      the same principle. We are all Republicans: we are all
      Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to
      dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let
      them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with
      which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is
      left free to combat it. I know indeed that some honest men
      fear that a Republican Government cannot be strong; that
      this Government is not strong enough. But would the honest
      patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon
      a Government which has so far kept us free and firm, on the
      theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the
      world's best hope, may, by possibility, want energy to
      preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the
      contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it
      the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would
      fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of
      the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it
      is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of
      himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of
      others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to
      govern him? Let history answer this question.

      Let us then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own
      federal and republican principles; our attachment to union
      and representative government. Kindly separated by nature
      and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one
      quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the
      degradations of the others; possessing a chosen country,
      with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and
      thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our
      equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the
      acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence
      from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but
      from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a
      benign religion, professed indeed and practised in various
      forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth,
      temperance, gratitude, and the love of man, acknowledging
      and adoring an overruling Providence, which, by all its
      dispensations, proves that it delights in the happiness of
      man here and his greater happiness hereafter; with all
      these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy
      and a prosperous people? Still one thing more,
      fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall
      restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them
      otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry
      and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor
      the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good
      government; and this is necessary to close the circle of
      our felicities.

      About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties
      which comprehend every thing dear and valuable to you, it
      is proper you should understand what I deem the essential
      principles of our Government, and consequently those which
      ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them
      within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the
      general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and
      exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion,
      religious or political: peace, commerce, and honest
      friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with
      none: the support of the State Governments in all their
      rights, as the most competent administrations for our
      domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against
      anti-republican tendencies: the preservation of the General
      Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the
      sheet-anchor of our peace at home, and safety abroad: a
      jealous care of the right of election by the people; a mild
      and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword
      of revolution, where peaceable remedies are unprovided:
      absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the
      vital principle of Republics, from which is no appeal but
      to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of
      despotism: a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in
      peace, and for the first moments of war, till regulars may
      relieve them: the supremacy of the civil over the military
      authority--economy in the public expense, that labor may be
      lightly burdened: the honest payment of our debts, and
      sacred preservation of the public faith: encouragement of
      agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid: the diffusion
      of information, and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of
      the public reason: freedom of religion, freedom of the
      press, and freedom of person, under the protection of the
      habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected.
      These principles form the bright constellation which has
      gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of
      revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages, and
      blood of our heroes, have been devoted to their attainment:
      they should be the creed of our political faith; the text
      of civic instruction; the touchstone by which to try the
      services of those we trust; and should we wander from them
      in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace
      our steps, and to regain the road which alone leads to
      peace, liberty, and safety.

      I repair then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have
      assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate offices
      to have seen the difficulties of this, the greatest of all,
      I have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot
      of imperfect man to retire from this station with the
      reputation and the favor which bring him into it. Without
      pretensions to that high confidence you reposed in our
      first and greatest revolutionary character, whose
      pre-eminent services had entitled him to the first place in
      his country's love, and destined for him the fairest page
      in the volume of faithful history, I ask so much
      confidence only as may give firmness and effect to the
      legal administration of your affairs. I shall often go
      wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often
      be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command
      a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my
      own errors, which will never be intentional; and your
      support against the errors of others, who may condemn what
      they would not, if seen in all its parts. The approbation
      implied by your suffrage is a great consolation to me for
      the past; and my future solicitude will be, to retain the
      good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to
      conciliate that of others by doing them all the good in my
      power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom
      of all.

      Relying then on the patronage of your good will, I advance
      with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it
      whenever you become sensible how much better choices it is
      in your power to make. And may that Infinite Power which
      rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to
      what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your
      peace and prosperity.

The oath of office was then administered to him by the Chief Justice of
the United States. After which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
retired.

The Senate then adjourned till to-morrow.


THURSDAY, March 5.

WILLIAM HINDMAN, appointed a Senator by the State of Maryland, produced
his credentials, and the oath of office was administered to him by the
VICE PRESIDENT.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. NICHOLAS and BALDWIN be a committee to wait on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and notify him that the Senate is
assembled and ready to receive any communications which he may be
pleased to make to them.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter from RAY GREENE, a Senator from
the State of Rhode Island, resigning his seat; which was read.

_Resolved_, That the VICE PRESIDENT be requested to notify to the
Executive of the State of Rhode Island, that RAY GREENE hath resigned
his seat in the Senate.

Mr. NICHOLAS reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and that he had informed the committee
that he would immediately lay a Message before the Senate. The Message
was received, containing nominations to fill Executive offices; which,
after being considered,

_Ordered_, That Messrs. NICHOLAS and BALDWIN be a committee to wait on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him, that, unless he has
any further communication to make, the Senate are ready to adjourn.

Mr. NICHOLAS reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he had informed them that he
had no further communications to make to the Senate.

Whereupon, the VICE PRESIDENT adjourned the Senate without day.




PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE,

IN SECRET SESSION, WHICH TOOK PLACE ON THE RATIFICATION OF THE
CONVENTION WITH THE FRENCH REPUBLIC


TUESDAY, December 16, 1800.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      I transmit to the Senate, for their consideration and
      decision, a convention, both in English and French, between
      the United States of America and the French Republic,
      signed at Paris, on the thirtieth day of September last, by
      the respective Plenipotentiaries of the two Powers. I also
      transmit to the Senate, three manuscript volumes,
      containing the journal of our Envoys.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _Dec. 15, 1800_.

The Message and convention were read; and after progress in reading the
other papers accompanying the Message,

_Ordered_, That the further reading thereof be postponed.


FRIDAY, December 19.

The Senate proceeded to consider the motion, made yesterday, that the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be requested to lay before the Senate the
instructions given to our late Commissioners to the French Republic;
which, being amended, was adopted, as follows:

_Resolved_, That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be requested to lay
before the Senate the instructions given to our late Envoys
Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary to the French Republic.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.


MONDAY, December 22.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      In conformity with your request, in your resolution of the
      19th of this month, I transmit you the instructions given
      to our late Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers
      Plenipotentiary to the French Republic.

      It is my request to the Senate that these instructions may
      be considered in strict confidence, and returned to me as
      soon as the Senate shall have made all the use of them they
      may judge necessary.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _Dec. 22, 1800_.

On motion,

      _Resolved_, That all confidential communications made by
      the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to the Senate, shall be,
      by the members thereof, kept inviolably secret; and that
      all treaties which may hereafter be laid before the Senate,
      shall also be kept secret, until the Senate shall, by their
      resolution, take off the injunction of secrecy.


THURSDAY, January 8, 1801.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the convention made on behalf of
the United States with the Republic of France.

And the second article having been debated, a question was moved
thereon, to wit: "Will the Senate advise and consent to the ratification
of this article?"

And the yeas and nays being taken, are as follows--yeas 11, nays 16:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke, T.
      Foster, Franklin, Greene, Langdon, S. T. Mason, Nicholas,
      and Paine.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Armstrong, Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster, Gunn,
      Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard, Latimer, Livermore, J. Mason,
      Morris, Read, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

So it passed in the negative.

And the third article being under consideration, a question was moved
and put, "Will the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of this
article?"

And the yeas and nays being taken, are as follows--yeas 12, nays 15:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown,
      Cocke, T. Foster, Franklin, Greene, Gunn, Langdon, S. T.
      Mason, and Nicholas.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster, Hillhouse,
      Hindman, Howard, Latimer, Livermore, J. Mason, Morris,
      Paine, Read, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

So it passed in the negative.

The Senate proceeded in the consideration of the convention, so far as
the fourteenth article; and, after debate,

_Ordered_, That the further consideration thereof be postponed.


FRIDAY, January 9.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the convention made on behalf of
the United States with the Republic of France.

On motion, to advise and consent to the adoption of an additional
article, to wit:

      "It is further agreed, between the said contracting
      parties, that nothing in this treaty contained, shall be
      construed or operate contrary to former and existing
      treaties with other States or sovereigns."

And, on the question, "Will the Senate advise and consent to the
adoption of this article?" it passed unanimously in the
affirmative--yeas 27, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Chipman, Cocke, Dayton, D. Foster, Franklin, Greene,
      Gunn, Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard, Langdon, Latimer,
      Livermore, S. T. Mason, J. Mason, Morris, Nicholas, Paine,
      Read, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

On motion, to advise and consent to the adoption of the following
additional article, to wit:

      "The present convention shall be in full force during the
      term of ---- years, to be computed from the time of the
      exchange of the ratifications."

And, after debate,

_Ordered_, That the further consideration thereof be postponed.


MONDAY, January 12.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the convention made on behalf of
the United States with the Republic of France; and

The motion made on the 9th instant, being amended as follows:

      The present convention shall be in full force until two
      years, to be computed from the day of the signature of the
      preliminary or other articles of peace, which shall
      conclude the war in which the French nation is now engaged,
      or for a term not exceeding ---- years, to be computed from
      the time of the exchange of the ratifications, whichever
      event shall first happen.

      On the question, "Will the Senate advise and consent to the
      adoption of this article?" it was determined in the
      affirmative--yeas 25, nay 1, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bingham,
      Bloodworth, Brown, Chipman, Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster, D.
      Foster, Franklin, Greene, Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard,
      Latimer, Livermore, Morris, Nicholas, Paine, Read,
      Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAY.--Mr. Langdon.


THURSDAY, January 15.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the convention made on behalf of
the United States with the Republic of France: Whereupon,

The VICE PRESIDENT reported to the House, that the Senate, as in a
Committee of the Whole, had had under their consideration the
convention, and had gone through the same, and had agreed to sundry
modifications, which he proceeded to state to the House, and again to
put questions thereon, severally, for confirmation, as follows:

On the question, whether the Senate would advise and consent to the
ratification of the second article of the convention? it passed in the
negative--yeas 10, nays 15, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Cocke, T.
      Foster, Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, Nicholas, and Paine.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster,
      Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Livermore, J. Mason, Morris,
      Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

On the question whether the Senate would advise and consent to the
ratification of the third article of the convention? a motion was made
to amend the article, by adding to the end thereof, these words, "or
paid for." Whereupon,

A motion was made to amend the amendment by adding thereto the following
words: "And so likewise, the merchant ships and vessels which have been
taken, and definitively condemned on the one part and the other, shall
be restored or paid for."

On the question to agree to the amendment to the amendment, it passed in
the negative--yeas 8, nays 20, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. D. Foster, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer,
      Livermore, Read, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bingham,
      Bloodworth, Brown, Chipman, Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster,
      Franklin, Langdon, Marshall, S. T. Mason, J. Mason, Morris,
      Nicholas, Paine, Ross, and Schureman.

So the amendment to the amendment was lost.

On the question to agree to the original amendment, to wit: to add the
words "or paid for;" it passed in the negative--yeas 7, nays 21, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Brown, Baldwin, Cocke,
      S. T. Mason, and Nicholas.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bloodworth, Chipman, Dayton, T.
      Foster, D. Foster, Franklin, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon,
      Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, J. Mason, Morris, Paine,
      Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

So the amendment was lost.

On the question, whether the Senate would advise and consent to the
ratification of the third article? it passed in the negative--yeas 13,
nays 16, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Cocke, T. Foster, Franklin, Greene, Langdon,
      Marshall, S. T. Mason, and Nicholas.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster,
      Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer, Livermore, J. Mason, Morris,
      Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

On the question, whether the Senate would advise and consent to the
adoption of the first additional article, agreed to as in Committee of
the Whole, on the 9th instant? it passed unanimously in the
affirmative--yeas 28, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bingham,
      Bloodworth, Brown, Chipman, Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster, D.
      Foster, Franklin, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon,
      Latimer, Livermore, S. T. Mason, J. Mason, Morris,
      Nicholas, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

On motion to fill the blank in the second additional article, agreed to
as in Committee of the Whole, with the words, "ten years;" it passed in
the negative--yeas 9, nays 19, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke, T.
      Foster, Franklin, Langdon, S. T. Mason, and Nicholas.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Bingham, Chipman,
      Dayton, D. Foster, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Latimer,
      Livermore, J. Mason, Morris, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman,
      Tracy, and Wells.

On motion to fill the blank with the words "eight years," it passed
unanimously in the affirmative--yeas 28, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bingham,
      Bloodworth, Brown, Chipman, Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster, D.
      Foster, Franklin, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon,
      Latimer, Livermore, S. T. Mason, J. Mason, Morris,
      Nicholas, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

On motion to amend the second additional article agreed to as in
Committee of the Whole, by striking out these words, "until two years,
to be computed from the day of the signature of the preliminary or other
articles of peace, which shall conclude the war in which the French
nation is now engaged."

And, on the question, "Shall these words stand?" it passed in the
negative--yeas 4, nays 23, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Livermore, Paine, Read, and Tracy.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Chipman, Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster, D. Foster,
      Franklin, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Latimer,
      Marshall, S. T. Mason, J. Mason, Morris, Nicholas,
      Schureman, and Wells.

And the article having been further amended, by unanimous consent, to
read as follows:

      "The present convention shall be in full force for the term
      of eight years, to be computed from the time of the
      exchange of the ratifications."

On the question, whether the Senate would advise and consent to the said
additional article, as amended? it passed in the affirmative--yeas 26,
nay 1, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Chipman, Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster, D. Foster,
      Franklin, Greene, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Latimer,
      Marshall, S. T. Mason, J. Mason, Morris, Nicholas, Paine,
      Read, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAY.--Mr. Livermore.

_Ordered_, That Mr. MORRIS, Mr. NICHOLAS, and Mr. DAYTON, be a committee
to reduce the several votes on this treaty into the form of a
ratification.


WEDNESDAY, January 21.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      In compliance with your request, signified in your
      resolution of the twentieth day of this month, I transmit
      you a report, made to me by the Secretary of State, on the
      same day; a letter of our late Envoys to him on the 4th of
      October last; an extract of a letter from our Minister
      Plenipotentiary in London, to him, of the 22d of November
      last; and an extract of another letter from the Minister to
      the Secretary, of the 31st of October last.

      The reasoning in the letter of our late Envoys to France is
      so fully supported by the writers on the law of nations,
      particularly by Vattel, as well as by his great masters,
      Grotius and Puffendorf, that nothing is left to be desired
      to settle the point, that if there be a collision between
      two treaties, made with two different powers, the more
      ancient has the advantage; for no engagement contrary to it
      can be entered into in the treaty afterwards made; and if
      this last be found, in any case, incompatible with the more
      ancient one, its execution is considered as impossible,
      because the person promising had not the power of acting
      contrary to his antecedent engagement. Although our right
      is very clear to negotiate treaties according to our own
      ideas of right and justice, honor and good faith, yet it
      must always be a satisfaction to know that the judgment of
      other nations with whom we have connection, coincides with
      ours, and that we have no reason to apprehend that any
      disagreeable questions and discussions are likely to arise.
      The letters from Mr. King will, therefore, be read by the
      Senate, with particular satisfaction.

      The inconveniences to public officers and the mischiefs to
      the public, arising from the publication of the despatches
      of Ministers abroad, are so numerous, and so obvious, that
      I request of the Senate that these papers, especially the
      letters from Mr. King, be considered in close confidence.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _Jan. 21, 1801_.

The Message and papers were read, and ordered to lie for consideration.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee
appointed to reduce the several votes on the convention made on behalf
of the United States with the Republic of France, into the form of a
ratification, together with the motion made yesterday thereon, to wit:
to amend the proviso, by inserting after the word "third," the words
"and nineteenth." And, on the question, to agree to the insertion of the
words, it was determined in the negative--yeas 6, nays 22, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Hillhouse, Read, Ross, Tracy, and
      Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Chipman, Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster, D. Foster,
      Franklin, Greene, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Livermore, S.
      T. Mason, J. Mason, Morris, Nicholas, Paine, and Schureman.

_Ordered_, That the further consideration of the convention, and the
report of the committee thereon, be postponed until Friday next.


FRIDAY, January 23.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee
appointed to reduce the several votes on the convention made on behalf
of the United States with the Republic of France, into the form of a
ratification, which report is as follows:

      _Resolved by the Senate of the United States_, (two-thirds
      of the Senators present concurring therein,) That they do
      consent to and advise the ratification of the convention
      between the French Republic and the United States of
      America, made at Paris the eighth day of Vendemaire, of the
      ninth year of the French Republic, the thirtieth day of
      September, anno Domini eighteen hundred: _Provided_, The
      second and third articles be expunged, and that the
      following articles be added or inserted:

      1st. It is understood that nothing in this convention shall
      be so construed as to operate contrary to any former and
      existing treaties between either of the parties and any
      other State or Sovereign.

      2d. It is agreed that the present convention shall be in
      force for the term of eight years from the time of the
      exchange of the ratifications.

Whereupon a motion was made to strike out the whole of the proviso; on
which it was agreed to divide the question into four parts, viz:

      1st. Whether so much as provides that the second article
      shall be expunged, shall stand?

      2d. Whether so much as provides that the third article be
      expunged, shall stand?

      3d. Whether that part shall stand which restrains it from
      operating against former treaties?

      4th. Whether that part shall stand which provides a
      limitation of time to its duration?

And, on the question on the first division, to wit: Whether so much as
provides that the second article shall be expunged, shall stand? it
passed in the negative, two-thirds of the Senators present not agreeing
thereto--yeas 17, nays 13, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Armstrong, Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, D.
      Foster, Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard, Latimer, J. Mason,
      Morris, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke,
      T. Foster, Franklin, Greene, Langdon, Livermore, Marshall,
      S. T. Mason, and Nicholas.

And on the question on the second division, to wit: Whether so much as
provides that the third article shall be expunged, shall stand? it
passed in the negative, two-thirds of the Senators present not agreeing
thereto--yeas 16, nays 17, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster,
      Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard, Latimer, J. Mason, Morris,
      Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Cocke, T. Foster, Franklin, Greene, Langdon,
      Livermore, Marshall, S. T. Mason, and Nicholas.

And, on the question on the third division, to wit: Whether that part
shall stand which restrains it from operating against former treaties?
it passed in the negative, two-thirds of the Senators present not
agreeing thereto--yeas 17, nays 13, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster, Greene,
      Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard, Latimer, J. Mason, Morris,
      Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Cocke, T. Foster, Franklin, Langdon, Livermore,
      Marshall, S. T. Mason, and Nicholas.

And, on the question on the fourth division, to wit: Whether that part
shall stand which provides a limitation of time to its duration? it was
determined in the affirmative--yeas 24, nays 6, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Bingham, Bloodworth,
      Chipman, Cocke, Dayton, D. Foster, Franklin, Greene,
      Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Livermore, J.
      Mason, Morris, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and
      Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Brown, T. Foster, Marshall, S. T.
      Mason, and Nicholas.

And, on the question to agree to the report of the committee, as
amended, it was determined in the negative, two-thirds of the Senators
present not agreeing thereto--yeas 16, nays 14, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Chipman, Cocke, T. Foster, Franklin, Greene,
      Langdon, Livermore, Marshall, S. T. Mason, Nicholas, and
      Paine.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Dayton, D. Foster, Hillhouse,
      Hindman, Howard, Latimer, J. Mason, Morris, Read, Ross,
      Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.


TUESDAY, February 3.

On motion, it was agreed to reconsider the vote passed the 23d of
January, on the report of the committee appointed to reduce the several
votes on the convention made on behalf of the United States with the
French Republic, into the form of a ratification.

On motion, it was agreed to reconsider the first division of the report,
to wit:

      "Whether so much as provides that the second article shall
      be expunged, shall stand?"

And, on the question to agree to this part of the report, it passed in
the affirmative--yeas 30, nay 1, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bingham,
      Bloodworth, Brown, Chipman, Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster, D.
      Foster, Franklin, Greene, Gunn, Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard,
      Langdon, Latimer, Livermore, S. T. Mason, J. Mason, Morris,
      Nicholas, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAY.--Mr. Marshall.

On motion, it was agreed to reconsider the vote of the 23d of January,
on the second division of the report, to wit:

      "Whether so much as provides that the third article shall
      be expunged, shall stand?"

And, on the question to agree thereto, it passed in the negative,
two-thirds of the Senators present not agreeing thereto--yeas 18, nays
13, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster, Greene,
      Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard, Latimer, Livermore, J. Mason,
      Morris, Paine, Read, Ross, Schureman, Tracy, and Wells.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Cocke, T. Foster, Franklin, Gunn, Langdon, Marshall,
      S. T. Mason, and Nicholas.

On the question to agree to the ratification, as follows:

      _Resolved by the Senate of the United States_, (two-thirds
      of the Senators present concurring therein,) That they do
      consent to, and advise the ratification of the convention
      between the French Republic and the United States of
      America, made at Paris, the eighth day of Vendemaire, of
      the ninth year of the French Republic, the thirtieth day of
      September, anno Domini, eighteen hundred: _Provided_, The
      second article be expunged, and that the following article
      be added or inserted:

      It is agreed, that the present convention shall be in force
      for the term of eight years, from the time of the exchange
      of the ratifications.

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 22, nays 9, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Armstrong, Baldwin, Bloodworth,
      Brown, Chipman, Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster, Franklin, Greene,
      Gunn, Hindman, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Livermore,
      Marshall, S. T. Mason, Nicholas, Paine, and Schureman.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, D. Foster, Hillhouse, J. Mason,
      Morris, Read, Ross, Tracy, and Wells.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.


FRIDAY, February 20.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      I request of the Senate, that the letter and journal of our
      late Envoys to France, and the copy of their instructions,
      and other documents relative to that negotiation, may be
      returned to me, or to the office of State.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      UNITED STATES, _Feb. 20, 1801_.

The Message was read: Whereupon,

_Ordered_, That the papers specified in the Message of the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, of this day, be returned to him.




SIXTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, November 17, 1800.

This being the day appointed by law for the commencement of the second
session of the sixth Congress, the following members of the House of
Representatives appeared, and took their seats in the House, to wit:

_From New Hampshire._--ABIEL FOSTER, and JONATHAN FREEMAN.

_From Massachusetts._--WILLIAM SHEPARD, JNO. READ, JOSEPH B. VARNUM,
THEODORE SEDGWICK, (_Speaker_,) PELEG WADSWORTH, SILAS LEE, and LEMUEL
WILLIAMS.

_From Connecticut._--JOHN DAVENPORT.

_From New York._--JOHN SMITH, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, JONAS PLATT, HENRY
GLEN, JOHN THOMPSON, and THEODORUS BAILEY.

_From Pennsylvania._--MICHAEL LEIB, RICHARD THOMAS, JOSEPH HEISTER,
ROBERT BROWN, PETER MUHLENBERG, HENRY WOODS, and JOHN SMILIE.

_From Maryland._--GEORGE DENT, GEO. BAER, WILLIAM CRAIK, GABRIEL
CHRISTIE, JOHN C. THOMAS, and JOSEPH H. NICHOLSON.

_From Virginia._--LEVEN POWELL, JOHN NICHOLAS, ROBERT PAGE, JOHN DAWSON,
ANTHONY NEW, GEORGE JACKSON, and DAVID HOLMES.

_From North Carolina._--NATHANIEL MACON, RICHARD STANFORD, and WILLIS
ALSTON.

_From South Carolina._--THOMAS SUMTER, and BENJAMIN HUGER.

_From Tennessee._--WILLIAM C. C. CLAIBORNE.

A new member, to wit, JOHN C. SMITH, returned to serve as a member of
this House, from the State of Connecticut, in the room of Jonathan
Brace, who has resigned his seat, appeared and produced his credentials.

The SPEAKER observed that it had heretofore been the invariable practice
of the House to admit new members to take their seats previously to
being sworn, though the constitution directed directly the reverse. As
there was a new member present, he suggested the propriety of
administering the oath to him before he took his seat.

Mr. MACON thought such a step premature. He was of opinion that no
inconvenience would arise from delaying to administer the oath until a
House was formed, and he thought great caution should attend an
innovation opposed to all precedent.

Mr. NICHOLAS asked whether it had heretofore been usual, in the case of
a new House, to swear the members before the choice of a Speaker?

The SPEAKER replied that it had not.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that though, on first thought, he was favorable to
administering the oath at the present time, yet this precedent inclined
him to think such a step improper.

The SPEAKER waived the question.

The members present not being sufficient to form a quorum, the SPEAKER
adjourned the body till to-morrow.


TUESDAY, November 18.

Several other members, to wit: from Connecticut, ELIZUR GOODRICH,
WILLIAM EDMOND, and ROGER GRISWOLD; from New York, WILLIAM COOPER and
LUCAS ELMENDORPH; from New Jersey, JAMES H. IMLAY and FRANKLIN
DAVENPORT; from Pennsylvania, ROBERT WALN; from Maryland, SAMUEL SMITH;
from Virginia, HENRY LEE, THOMAS EVANS, and JOHN TRIGG; from North
Carolina, RICHARD DOBBS SPAIGHT, and JOSEPH DICKSON; and from Georgia,
BENJAMIN TALIAFERRO, appeared and took their seats in the House.

And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being
present,

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 administered by the SPEAKER to JOHN C.
SMITH, a new member, who appeared and took his seat in the House
yesterday.

_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 19.

Several other members, to wit: from Vermont, LEWIS R. MORRIS, and from
Virginia, JOSIAH PARKER and JOHN RANDOLPH, appeared, and took their
seats in the House.


THURSDAY, November 20.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, ABRAM TRIGG, and from
Pennsylvania, ANDREW GREGG, appeared, and took their seats in the House.


FRIDAY, November 21.

Several other members, to wit, from Massachusetts, GEORGE THATCHER; from
New Jersey, JOHN CONDIT, AARON KITCHELL, and JAMES LINN; from
Pennsylvania, JOHN A. HANNA; and from South Carolina, ROBERT GOODLOE
HARPER, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House 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 the Hon. JOHN HOWARD, President
of the Senate, _pro tempore_.

_Resolved_, That Mr. GRISWOLD, Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, and Mr. CRAIK, be a
committee, on the part of this House, jointly, with such committee as
may be appointed on the part of the Senate, 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 think proper
to make to them.

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do acquaint the Senate
therewith.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have
appointed a committee jointly, with the committee appointed by this
House, 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 think proper to make to them.

Mr. GRISWOLD, 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
think proper to make to them, reported that the committee had performed
that service, and that the PRESIDENT signified to them he would make a
communication to both Houses to-morrow at twelve o'clock, in the Senate
Chamber.


SATURDAY, November 22.

Two other members, to wit: from North Carolina, ARCHIBALD HENDERSON; and
from Virginia, EDWIN GRAY, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

_President's Speech._

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.

Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the members of this House, then withdrew to the
Senate Chamber, for the purpose stated in the Senate's message; and,
being returned, Mr. 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. [See Senate proceedings of this date,
_ante_, page 482.]

_Ordered_, That the said speech 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, Mr. SPEAKER resumed the chair, and Mr.
HARPER 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 the present session, containing assurances
      that this House will duly attend to the important objects
      recommended by him to their consideration.

_Ordered_, That Mr. GRISWOLD, Mr. MACON, Mr. CRAIK, Mr. HENDERSON, and
Mr. NICHOLAS, be appointed a committee to prepare an address, pursuant
to the said resolution.

_Ordered_, That the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be
committed to the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union.

And then the House adjourned.


MONDAY, November 24.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, HARRISON G. OTIS, and
PHANUEL BISHOP; from Virginia, MATTHEW CLAY; and from North Carolina,
DAVID STONE, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

WILLIAM M'MILLAN, returned to serve as a Representative for the
Territory of the United States north-west of the Ohio, in the room of
William Henry Harrison, who has resigned his seat, appeared, produced
his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.


TUESDAY, November 25.

Another member, to wit, JOHN WILKES KITTERA, from Pennsylvania,
appeared, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

A new member, to wit, NATHAN READ, returned to serve as a member of this
House from the State of Massachusetts, in the room of Samuel Sewall, who
has resigned his seat, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his
seat in the House.


WEDNESDAY, November 26.

A new member, to wit, LYTTLETON W. TAZEWELL, returned to serve as a
member of the House for the State of Virginia, in the room of John
Marshall, who has resigned his seat, appeared, produced his credentials,
was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Address to the President._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the reply to the
PRESIDENT'S Speech, which was read by paragraphs, and reported to the
House without any amendments, as follows:

      To JOHN ADAMS, _President of the United States_:

      SIR: The House of Representatives have received with great
      respect the communication which you have been pleased to
      make to the two Houses of Congress, at the commencement of
      the present session.

      The final establishment of the seat of National Government
      which has now taken place within the District of Columbia,
      is an event of no small importance in the political
      transactions of our country: and we cordially unite our
      wishes with yours, that this territory may be the residence
      of happiness and virtue.

      Nor can we, on this occasion, omit to express a hope, that
      the spirit which animated the great founder of this city,
      may descend to future generations, and that the wisdom,
      magnanimity, and steadiness, which marked the events of his
      public life, may be imitated in all succeeding ages.

      A consideration of those powers which have been vested in
      Congress over the District of Columbia will not escape our
      attention; nor shall we forget that, in exercising these
      powers, a regard must be had to those events which will
      necessarily attend the Capital of America.

      The cheerfulness and regularity with which the officers and
      soldiers of the temporary army have returned to the
      condition of private citizens, is a testimony clear and
      conclusive of the purity of those motives which induced
      them to engage in the public service; and will remain a
      proof, on all future occasions, that an army of soldiers
      drawn from the citizens of our country, deserve our
      confidence and respect.

      No subject can be more important than that of the
      Judiciary, which you have again recommended to our
      consideration, and it shall receive our early and
      deliberate attention.

      The Constitution of the United States having confided the
      management of our foreign negotiations to the control of
      the Executive power, we cheerfully submit to its decisions
      on this important subject. And in respect to the
      negotiations now pending with France, we sincerely hope
      that the final result may prove as fortunate to our
      country, as the most ardent mind can wish.

      So long as a predatory war is carried on against our
      commerce, we should sacrifice the interests and disappoint
      the expectations of our constituents, should we, for a
      moment, relax that system of maritime defence, which has
      resulted in such beneficial effects. At this period, it is
      confidently believed that few persons can be found within
      the United States, who do not admit that a Navy, well
      organized, must constitute the natural and efficient
      defence of this country against all foreign hostility.

      The progress which has been made in the manufacture of
      arms, leaves no doubt that the public patronage has already
      placed this country beyond all necessary dependence on
      foreign markets for an article so indispensable for
      defence; and gives us assurances that, under the
      encouragement which government will continue to extend to
      this important object, we shall soon rival foreign
      countries, not only in the number, but in the quality of
      arms completed from our own manufactories.

      Few events could have been more pleasing to our
      constituents, than that great and rapid increase of revenue
      which has arisen from permanent taxes. Whilst this event
      explains the great and increasing resources of our country,
      it carries along with it a proof which cannot be resisted,
      that those measures of maritime defence which were
      calculated to meet our enemy upon the ocean, and which have
      produced such extensive protection to our commerce, were
      founded in wisdom and policy. The mind must, in our
      opinion, be insensible to the plainest truths, which cannot
      discern the elevated ground on which this policy has placed
      our country. That national spirit, which alone could
      vindicate our common rights, has been roused, and those
      latent energies, which had not been fully known, were
      unfolded and brought into view, and our fellow-citizens
      were prepared to meet every event which national honor or
      national security could render necessary. Nor have its
      effects been much less important in other respects.

      Whilst many of the nations of the earth have been
      impoverished and depopulated by internal commotions and
      national contests, our internal peace has not been
      materially impaired; our commerce has extended, under the
      protection of our infant Navy, to every part of the globe;
      wealth has flowed without intermission into our seaports,
      and the labors of the husbandman have been rewarded by a
      ready market for the productions of the soil.

      Be assured, sir, that the various, and important subjects
      recommended to our consideration, shall receive our early
      and deliberate attention; and, confident of your
      co-operation in every measure which may be calculated to
      promote the general interests, we shall endeavor, on our
      part, to testify, by our industry and despatch, the zeal
      and sincerity with which we regard the public good.

The report of the committee was immediately taken up, and, on the
question to agree to the Address,

Mr. NICHOLAS rose and observed that he regretted the introduction of
political matter, calculated to produce discord and division. He was
averse to the House spending time in propounding political theories, as
no good, but much mischief, might flow from such a procedure. Had no
other topics or sentiments been alluded to than those contained in the
President's Speech, there would have been much less division in the
House than was to be expected from the insertion of extraneous ideas. He
had no intention, however, to enter into a detail of the objections he
entertained to the Address. For the reasons he had assigned, and others
which he felt, he thought the style of the Address not only unnecessary,
but worse than useless. He concluded by desiring the yeas and nays to be
taken.

The question, being taken, was carried in the affirmative--yeas 36, nays
32, as follows:

      YEAS.--Bailey Bartlett, William Cooper, Wm. Craik, John
      Davenport, Franklin Davenport, George Dent, Joseph Dickson,
      William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Jonathan
      Freeman, Elizur Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Archibald
      Henderson, Benjamin Huger, Jas. H. Imlay, Henry Lee, Silas
      Lee, James Linn, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Robert
      Page, Josiah Parker, Jonas Platt, Leven Powell, John Read,
      Nathan Read, Wm. Shepard, John C. Smith, Richard Dobbs
      Spaight, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Peleg Wadsworth,
      Robert Waln, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Phanuel Bishop, Robert Brown, Gabriel Christie,
      Matthew Clay, William C. C. Claiborne, John Condit, John
      Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A.
      Hanna, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, George Jackson, Aaron
      Kitchell, Michael Leib, Nathaniel Macon, Peter Muhlenberg,
      Anthony New, John Nicholas, John Randolph, John Smilie,
      John Smith, Richard Stanford, David Stone, Thomas Sumter,
      Benjamin Taliaferro, John Thompson, Abram Trigg, John
      Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, and Jos. B. Varnum.

_Resolved_, That Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said
Address; and that Mr. GRISWOLD, Mr. MACON, and Mr. CRAIK, be a committee
to wait on the PRESIDENT to know when and where it will be convenient
for him to receive the same.

_Credentials of Members._

Mr. DENT, from the Committee of Elections, to whom were referred the
certificates and other credentials of the members returned to serve in
this House, made a report, in part, which was read as follows:

      "That they have examined the credentials of several
      members, claiming seats in the House, in consequence of
      resignations which have taken place, and find that, by the
      certificate of the Governor of Massachusetts, dated the
      eleventh day of November, eighteen hundred, under the seal
      of the State, Nathan Read (of Danvers) is duly elected, in
      the place of Samuel Sewall; that by the certificate of the
      Governor of Connecticut, bearing date twentieth day of
      October, eighteen hundred, with the seal of the State
      annexed, John Cotton Smith is duly elected, in the place of
      Jonathan Brace; and that, by the certificate of the Deputy
      Sheriff of Henrico, the Sheriff of Hanover, the Sheriff of
      New Kent, the Deputy Sheriff of Charles City, and the
      Sheriff of James City Counties, composing one entire
      district in the Commonwealth of Virginia, under their
      respective seals, Lyttleton Waller Tazewell is duly
      elected, in the place of John Marshall.[58]

      "The committee also find, by an authenticated certificate
      signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
      the President of the Legislative Council of the Territory
      north-west of the river Ohio, dated the seventh day of
      November, eighteen hundred, that Wm. McMillan is duly
      elected to represent the said Territory, in the place of
      William Henry Harrison.

      "Whereupon, the committee are of opinion that Nathan Read,
      (of Danvers,) John Cotton Smith, and Lyttleton Waller
      Tazewell, are entitled to take their seats in the House in
      the place of Samuel Sewall, Jonathan Brace, and John
      Marshall, who have resigned; and that William McMillan is
      entitled to take his seat therein, with the right of
      debating, but not of voting, in the place of William Henry
      Harrison, who has resigned."

_Ordered_, That the said report do lie on the table.


THURSDAY, November 27.

Another member, to wit, JOHN BIRD, from New York, appeared, and took his
seat in the House.

_Answer to the Address._

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:

      _Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the House of
      Representatives_:

      Compelled by the habits of a long life, as well as by all
      the principles of society and government which I could ever
      understand and believe, to consider the great body of the
      people as the source of all legitimate authority, no less
      than all efficient power, it is impossible for me to
      receive this Address from the immediate Representatives of
      the American people, at this time, and in this place,
      without emotions which it would be improper to express, if
      any language could convey them.

      May the spirit which animated the great founder of this
      city descend to future generations; and may the wisdom,
      magnanimity, and steadiness, which marked the events of his
      public life, be imitated in all succeeding ages.

      I thank you, gentlemen, for your assurance that the
      Judiciary System shall receive your deliberate attention.

      With you, gentlemen, I sincerely hope that the final result
      of the negotiations now pending with France, may prove as
      fortunate to our country, as they have been commenced with
      sincerity, and prosecuted with deliberation and caution.
      With you, I cordially agree, that so long as a predatory
      war is carried on against our commerce, we should sacrifice
      the interests and disappoint the expectations of our
      constituents, should we for a moment relax that system of
      maritime defence, which has resulted in such beneficial
      effects. With you, I confidently believe that few persons
      can be found within the United States, who do not admit
      that a Navy, well organized, must constitute the natural
      and efficient defence of this country, against all foreign
      hostility.

      Those who recollect the distress and danger to this
      country, in former periods, from the want of arms, must
      exult in the assurance, from their Representatives, that we
      shall soon rival foreign countries, not only in the number,
      but in the quality of arms, completed from our own
      manufactories.

      With you, gentlemen, I fully agree, that the great increase
      of revenue is a proof that the measures of maritime defence
      were founded in wisdom. This policy has raised us in the
      esteem of foreign nations. That national spirit and those
      latent energies which had not been and are not yet fully
      known to any, were not entirely forgotten by those who had
      lived long enough to see, in former times, their operation,
      and some of their effects. Our fellow-citizens were
      undoubtedly prepared to meet every event which national
      honor or national security could render necessary. These,
      it is to be hoped, are secured at the cheapest and easiest
      rate: if not, they will be secured at more expense.

      I thank you, gentlemen, for your assurance that the various
      subjects recommended to your consideration, shall receive
      your deliberate attention. No further evidence is wanting
      to convince me of the zeal and sincerity with which the
      House of Representatives regard the public good.

      I pray you, gentlemen, to accept of my best wishes for your
      health and happiness.

                          JOHN ADAMS.

      WASHINGTON, _Nov. 27, 1800_.

The members then returned to their Chamber.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have
proceeded to the appointment of a Chaplain to Congress, on their part,
and the Right Reverend Bishop CLAGETT has been duly elected.

The House proceeded, by ballot, to the appointment of a Chaplain to
Congress on the part of this House; and upon examining the ballots, a
majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of the
Reverend THOMAS LYELL.


FRIDAY, November 28.

Another member, to wit, ABRAHAM NOTT, from South Carolina, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.


MONDAY, December 1.

Several other members, to wit: from Maryland, JOHN DENNIS; from
Virginia, JOSEPH EGGLESTON; from North Carolina, WILLIAM H. HILL; and
from Georgia, JAMES JONES, appeared, and took their seats in the House.


TUESDAY, December 2.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the
Navy, accompanying a report of the Commissioners of the fund for navy
pensions and half-pay, pursuant to the act for the better government of
the Navy of the United States; which was read, and ordered to lie on the
table.

Mr. LEE, from the committee appointed for that purpose, reported a bill
for erecting a Mausoleum to GEORGE WASHINGTON, which was read twice and
referred to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.

The bill directs that the mausoleum shall be of marble, to be erected in
the City of Washington, under the superintendence of the four
Secretaries.

_Trade with the Indians._

Mr. CLAIBORNE stated that during the last session a committee was
appointed to inquire into the state of the trade, authorized by law,
with the Indian nations. That committee had reported unfavorably to the
trade. But desirous of maturing with deliberation a new plan before the
old one was supplanted, they had reported a bill for continuing the
existing system for one year. The bill had passed the House of
Representatives unanimously, but had been postponed by the Senate to
this session.

For his own part, he was altogether unfavorable to the trade; for he
believed that it answered no good purpose in relation to the Indians,
while it was a loss to the United States.[59] It was, however, proper
that some Legislative provision should be made immediately. The old law
regulating the officers who had the superintendence of the trade, had
expired, and they were of consequence under no legal control.

He, therefore, moved the appointment of a committee, to inquire into the
expediency of carrying on any further trade on a capital furnished by
the United States, to report by bill or otherwise; which motion being
read a second time, was agreed to, and a committee of three appointed.


THURSDAY, December 4.

Another member, to wit, SAMUEL GOODE, from Virginia, appeared, and took
his seat in the House.

The SPEAKER informed the House that the Chaplains had proposed, if
agreeable to the House, to hold Divine service every Sunday in their
Chamber.

_Reporting the Debates._

Mr. HILL presented a memorial from Samuel Harrison Smith and Thomas
Carpenter, representing that they had undertaken to report the debates
of the House; that, contrary to their expectation--on the suggestion of
inconvenience to the members--they had not received permission to occupy
a situation within the bar, without which they were unable to state with
fidelity the proceedings and debates; and praying the permission of the
House to be admitted within the bar.

As soon as the memorial was read, the SPEAKER rose and observed, that
feeling himself responsible to the House for the faithful discharge of
the duties attached to his situation, he thought it proper to state the
line of conduct he had pursued in this business. He stated that he was
applied to by letter on the first day of the session, by Mr. Stewart,
requesting permission to occupy a place within the bar; that he
immediately took the request into consideration; that, in the mean time,
similar requests were made by other individuals; that, on observing the
structure of the room and the arrangement of the furniture, it at once
appeared to him inconsistent with the dignity of the House or the
convenience of the members to grant the permission asked; that the area
was too small to afford the necessary accommodation; that the position
considered as the least inconvenient to the House was within the
window-frames; that, in his opinion, this position would not be
agreeable to the stenographers, as the view of the members on the
opposite side of the House from either window would be obstructed; that,
if a position was assigned in any other part of the House, the
stenographers would be between the chair and some of the members, which
would render the preservation of order impossible; that he had stated
these reasons, and informed the applicants that, if agreeable to them,
he would assign a place in the gallery, which should be set apart for
their exclusive use; and that he considered that to be the most eligible
position. He concluded by repeating, that it was, in his opinion,
absolutely impossible to preserve the dignity of the House and to
maintain the convenience of the members, if the requested permission
were given. Such was his first, his invariable opinion--it was
unaltered--it was still the same.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that the members of the House must feel a common
interest in having the debates taken with fidelity. If the debates were
taken, they ought to be taken with precision. Those who took them should
not be debarred from the best means of hearing with accuracy. For his
part he could not discern the inconvenience alleged to exist. The desk,
which it was necessary to admit within the bar, would not project beyond
the window-frame; and as to the remark of the Speaker respecting the
inconvenience of such a position to the stenographers, it was easily
obviated by the consideration, that any inaccuracy which might occur in
the report of the individual who took them on one side of the chair,
would be checked by the reporter situated on the other side.

He thought the desire of the memorialists ought not to be passed over
lightly. They had a right to the best place the House could assign. He
moved the reference of the memorial to a select committee.

Mr. HILL observed that as the memorial contained no facts that required
the investigation of a committee, and as the House possessed all the
information that could guide their decision, he did not discern the
propriety of the proposed reference. He had prepared a resolution,
which, if the motion for a reference were withdrawn, he would offer.

Mr. NICHOLAS immediately withdrew his motion. Mr. HILL then proposed a
resolution substantially to this effect: that Mr. SPEAKER be requested
to assign places within the bar for the stenographers.

Mr. OTIS was sorry the gentleman from Virginia had withdrawn his motion
to refer the memorial to a select committee, as he thought the subject
required examination before a decision was made. There appeared to him
much weight in the ideas of the Speaker. Grant, for the sake of
argument, that four persons may be accommodated at the windows. Might
there not be other applications? Was any gentleman prepared to say how
many would be made? If the permission were once granted to one, would it
not be necessary to extend it to all? Would the House suffer any
individual to have an exclusive benefit whereby a stamp of authenticity
would be fixed on his statements.

This business, in one shape or other, had often been before the House,
and all conversation respecting it had always issued in leaving it to
the regulation of the Speaker. This appeared to him the best termination
it could receive.

From the attention he had paid to the debates reported this session, he
believed them to be better and more accurately taken, than they had been
on former occasions. This to him was a proof that the present situation
of the stenographers was a good one. He acknowledged, at the same time,
that the ability with which the debates were taken entitled those who
took them to the best accommodation the House could afford. He concluded
with renewing the motion for a reference to a select committee.

Mr. NICHOLAS replied, that no debate had taken place which could test
the accuracy of the stenographers. From his own experience he pronounced
the situation at present occupied utterly inconvenient. What he had some
days since remarked had been misstated. He well knew that this did not
arise from the inability of the reporter to state correctly what
occurred. He knew him to be intelligent, and fully capable of conceiving
and conveying the meaning of any remarks which could be made in that
House. But it arose from his situation, from which it was impossible to
hear distinctly.

He declared the objections of Mr. OTIS, in relation to the number of
applicants, perfectly chimerical. Did the gentleman suppose that the
number would be so great as to make a demand on their seats? As well
might he imagine this, as that they would swell to the ideal compass he
had given them. It was known to the House, that at Philadelphia the
number was small; seldom more than two, and often not more than one
persevered during the session, though a greater number appeared on its
earliest days. Fact and experience, therefore, demonstrated the fallacy
of the danger apprehended from this source.

The question was then taken on the reference to a select committee, and
carried--ayes 42, noes 34.

And a committee of five, viz: Messrs. OTIS, NICHOLAS, PLATT, MORRIS, and
HILL, was appointed.


FRIDAY, December 5.

Several members, to wit: from North Carolina, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE; from
Kentucky, THOMAS T. DAVIS; and from Rhode Island, CHRISTOPHER G.
CHAMPLIN, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

_Mausoleum to Washington._

Mr. H. LEE moved that the House do go into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill "directing the erection of a mausoleum to GEORGE WASHINGTON."

On which motion the House divided--yeas 36, nays 34. Mr. MORRIS took the
chair.

The Chairman, after reading the bill through, proceeded to read it by
paragraphs. The first section is as follows:

      "SEC. 1. _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
      Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
      assembled_, That a mausoleum of American granite and
      marble, in a pyramidal form, one hundred feet square at the
      base, and of a proportionate height, shall be erected, in
      testimony of the love and gratitude of the citizens of the
      United States, to GEORGE WASHINGTON."

Mr. ALSTON moved an amendment to the first section, which was, in
substance, "that a monument of marble be erected in the Capitol, at the
city of Washington, commemorative of the great events of the military
and political life of GEORGE WASHINGTON."

Mr. H. LEE said, that during the last session the House, after a long
debate, had declared itself in favor of a mausoleum, and that as no
reasons had been assigned for a change of opinion, he hoped they would
persevere in the deliberate result of their judgment.

Mr. OTIS was ready to acknowledge himself unacquainted with many of the
circumstances embraced by the subject. He therefore wished additional
information to that which he had received. His present opinion was, that
a mausoleum was preferable to a monument. He acknowledged that, in
forming this opinion, he had felt great deference for the judgment of
the committee which had recommended it. It was undoubtedly a subject but
little understood. The formation of a proper decision depended upon a
concurrence of several circumstances--upon a comparison of the expense
with the value of the object to be accomplished. Besides this, it had
many peculiar features not comprehended by every gentleman. He thought
these considerations sufficient to induce the House to decline voting
for the amendment, whereby the plan of the committee, who had maturely
considered the subject in all its relations, would be frustrated, unless
stronger reasons were assigned than he had yet heard.

Mr. NICHOLAS observed, that the bill directed the erection of a
mausoleum of certain dimensions, to ascertain the expense of which an
estimate had been made. But that estimate was not satisfactory. It was
made without information. The sum to be expended was not fixed. It might
vastly exceed any sum now contemplated. The mausoleum was to consist of
a huge, ugly mass of stones heaped upon one another, to raise which a
heavy and useless expense would be incurred. And what was the object?
It was to perpetuate the memory of GEORGE WASHINGTON. Was the memory of
that great man to be perpetuated by a heap of large inanimate objects?
The best way in which his fame could be preserved would be by bringing
his ashes from the place where they now lie, by depositing them in the
Capitol at the will of the nation, in interring them in such a manner as
had never before been done, in placing over them a plain tablet, on
which every man could write what his heart dictated. This, and this only
was the basis of his fame. It was not to be blazoned by figures or
representations of any other sort. It consisted in the undecaying
recollection of his virtues. It must live in the national feeling, and
this called not for useless expense. Twenty thousand dollars was as
competent to its expression as two hundred thousand. He hoped,
therefore, the amendment would be adopted, and that the terms which
related to military and political achievements would be omitted. He
hoped a plain monument would be erected.

His preference of a monument to a mausoleum arose not from any
indisposition to celebrate the memory of our American hero. He could say
as much in his praise as any man. Neither a committee of Congress nor
the four Secretaries, on whom the bill devolved the superintendence,
felt more zeal for the character of this great man than he did.

Mr. NOTT did not rise to consume the time of the committee by going at
large into an examination of the subject, but to explain the reasons for
the vote he meant to give. He had, last session, co-operated most
cheerfully in all those measures which had been pursued to express the
national sensibility at the loss of that great and immortal character.
In the feelings of gratitude which his services excited, no man could
outdo him. Among other measures, he had been friendly to the erection of
a mausoleum. But, on more reflection, he had changed his opinion. He did
not believe that a huge mass of stones would add to the reputation of
WASHINGTON, or be more expressive of national affection, than a marble
monument. This being the case, he preferred the latter, because it was
the least expensive.

Mr. GRISWOLD hoped the amendment would not prevail. It was the object of
the bill to raise a monument which would last for ages, and which should
be a perpetual memorial of the gratitude of America. Such would not be
the case if the proposition made by the gentleman from North Carolina
should be adopted. The monument proposed by him might be broken and
destroyed by a lawless mob or by a set of schoolboys. For his part, he
would not consent to raise such a monument to the memory of a man who
had deserved so well of his country.

The bill proposed the erection of a monument that would stand unimpaired
for ages. It is true that it will not perpetuate the fame of WASHINGTON:
his fame required nothing which we could do to give it perpetuity; but
it will perpetuate the gratitude of the country. It would be a structure
that will command respect; it will be pointed out to our children; they
will enter it with reverence, as the spot in which the ashes of this
great man are deposited.

It was undoubtedly a subject of sentiment; and subjects of such a kind
must be guided by feeling. Various opinions, therefore, may naturally be
expected. His opinion was, that the national sentiment called for the
erection of a structure correspondent in size to the character of the
man to whom it was raised.

The general outlines of the bill might now be adopted; and if there
existed a variance of opinion, the subordinate members of it might be
modified.

Mr. H. LEE said, if it were the wish of gentlemen to avoid the adoption
of measures commemorative of the talents of the great man we have lost,
it would be candid to tell us so at once. For his part, he saw little
difference between the adoption of the amendment and the rejection of
every plan proposed that was adequate to the occasion. Sir, said Mr. L.,
there is not a rich man in Europe who loses his mistress that does not
raise a trophy to her memory; and shall it be said that we, who have
sustained the most irreparable loss in the death of our Chief--shall it
be said that we refuse to pay him those honors which are lavished so
liberally upon such inferior objects? If you do not mean to come forward
on the occasion, say so. Then we shall understand the reasons of
opposition to the ground taken by this House last session. As yet no
reasons had been assigned for abandoning it. We then declared that we
would act. We exhibited a spirit worthy of the immortal
WASHINGTON--worthy of the distinguished character of this House.

But should this honorable spirit, kindled by an enthusiasm in the
virtues and talents of our departed benefactor, subside and be chilled
by the adoption of the proposed amendments, he would condole with the
House, and would rather they would be silent for ever than disgrace
themselves and their country by so subordinate an act.

It is true, sir, that the celebrity and the glory of WASHINGTON hang not
on our plaudits. History will transmit to posterity the lustre of his
fame, glittering with untarnished purity. It is not in our power either
to increase or diminish it. But, sir, we may imitate his virtues and his
great example. We are deeply interested in holding them forth as
illustrious models to our sons. Is there, then, I ask you, any other
mode for perpetuating the memory of such transcendent virtues so strong,
so impressive as that which we propose? The grandeur of the pile we wish
to raise will impress a sublime awe in all who behold it. It will
survive the present generation. It will receive the homage of our
children's children; and they will learn that the truest way to gain
honor amidst a free people is to be useful, to be virtuous.

This will not be the act of an individual. It will be the act of a
Government expressing the will of a great nation. Seize then, I pray
you, seize with rapture, the occasion that is now presented, thankful to
the Supreme Disposer of events for giving you an opportunity of rearing
some future WASHINGTON. This is a great object; frown, then, upon all
the little efforts made to defeat it.

It is certainly true, that if you erect a mausoleum, you must expend
some public money. But are you not the guardians of the public treasure?
Does not the selection of the best objects to which to appropriate it
devolve on you? And can there be a greater, a more patriotic purpose
than this? Is it not your great duty to promote the public good; and can
that be more completely promoted in any other way? The sum asked is
seventy thousand dollars. Who can show me in what other manner the same
good can be effected by so small a sum?

But it is said that the bill vests a discretion in the Secretaries, and
they may exceed the estimate. But, sir, are the Secretaries unworthy of
confidence? Do not we know that we may safely rely upon them? Besides,
if thought expedient, the expenditure may be limited. Thus, surely,
without prodigality on the one hand or parsimony on the other, you may
do honor to yourselves and your country.

Mr. MACON did not pretend to know much about that kind of things
proposed by the bill; but he believed, from the little he did know, that
such a thing had not been attempted for a thousand years. The expense
attending the proposed measure had been treated lightly. For himself, he
was not disposed to consider seventy thousand dollars a trifling sum. He
thought it a great sum, and believed every man in the country thought as
he did. In forming his idea of any particular sum, he was not carried
away by the visionary notions of speculation; he looked at the labor it
required to produce it; and he well knew how hardly earned was the money
from which this enormous sum must proceed.

He further believed that no man could tell how much the mausoleum would
cost. The seventy thousand dollars was only a beginning; and when the
object was once begun, experience tells us that we must finish it at all
events, let it cost what it might. The base was fixed at a hundred feet.
Why not decide its other proportions? Did not the silence of the bill on
this point show the ignorance of gentlemen? All was doubt. What
strengthened his opinion of the total want of information, was the
exhibition last session of two estimates: one of which was predicated on
a base of sixty feet, and required sixty-seven thousand dollars; the
other was predicated on a base of one hundred feet, making the structure
nearly three times as large, and requiring only seventy thousand
dollars. Could this be correct? Both estimates certainly could not be
true. The probability was that neither could be depended upon.

For what purpose was this great mass to be raised? He saw no good
purpose likely to be answered by it under the sun. Can stones show
gratitude? If the nation wished to show its gratitude, let them do it by
making a history of the life of WASHINGTON a school-book. Our children
then will learn and imitate his virtues. This will be rendering the
highest tribute to his fame, by making it the instrument of enlightening
the mind and improving the heart.

While there are such rational modes of distinguishing the memory of
WASHINGTON, can Congress so far forget the interest of the nation; can
they so far forget their own duty, as to expend millions in acts of
useless and pernicious ostentation? Since the invention of types,
monuments are good for nothing. The records of history will remain long
after their decay or destruction.

We are told that the best mode of perpetuating the memory of WASHINGTON
is to erect a mausoleum. I have heard, said Mr. M., of Aristides, I have
heard of Hampden, but I have never heard of monuments raised to their
memories. Yet their virtues shine as bright now as they did while they
lived. I have heard of a place called Westminster Abbey, full of the
monuments of kings; yet, notwithstanding these grand memorials, I have
heard very little of them after they left this world, and I question
very much whether any man, let him have heard what he may, if he were to
go there could tell one of them from the other.

But, it is said that the monument, proposed by the amendment, may be
thrown down and destroyed by mobs or schoolboys. God forbid that this
should ever be the case! I do not believe, said Mr. M., this to be
possible. If it were made of glass, frail as it is, it would be safe;
all would revere, all would respect it.

The House is told by one gentleman, who advocates the mausoleum, that a
rich man in Europe cannot lose his mistress without raising a monument
to her memory. Was the gentleman serious when he made this remark? Would
he place the memory of WASHINGTON on a footing with that of a rich man's
mistress? Better, sir, said Mr. M., far better would it be, more
honorable to the Government, and more conformable to the wish of our
deceased friend, to devote the seventy thousand dollars, designed for a
mausoleum, to the education of the poor. Then, indeed, we might flatter
ourselves with having extended the empire of his virtues, by making
those understand and imitate them, who, uninstructed, could not
comprehend them.

If he thought that by raising a magnificent monument to WASHINGTON, he
could give duration to his fame, or carry his name into a single country
which it had not yet reached, he would give the measure his support. But
no such effect would be produced. It might indeed adorn this city; and
that was the only plausible argument in favor of it.

Before gentlemen act in this business, let them look to Egypt; there
they will behold precedents in profusion; men made gods, and statues and
monuments and mausolea covering the whole face of the country; but where
will they find the virtues or the talents of the men they were meant to
commemorate? Now is the time to make a stand against this monument
mania. WASHINGTON is admired and beloved by all. No one can be charged
with a desire to diminish his fame by opposing a useless expenditure of
money. The precedent we now establish will be auspicious to our future
measures. If we decline raising a mausoleum to WASHINGTON, no man who
succeeds him can expect one reared to his memory. On the other hand, if
we now raise one to WASHINGTON, every pretender to greatness will aim at
the same distinction.

Mr. MACON concluded by declaring himself hostile to the bill, and
friendly to the amendment, because it proposed a plan that was more
rational, more economical, and more conformable to the resolve of the
old Congress, than that contained in the bill.

The committee then rose without coming to any decision, reported
progress, and obtained leave to sit again.


MONDAY, December 8.

Several other members, to wit: from Connecticut, CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, and
SAMUEL W. DANA; and from Rhode Island, JOHN BROWN, appeared, and took
their seats in the House.

A new member, to wit, SAMUEL TENNEY, returned to serve in this House as
a member for New Hampshire, in the room of William Gordon, who has
resigned his seat, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified,
and took his seat in the House.


TUESDAY, December 9.

Another member, to wit, JOHN RUTLEDGE, Jr., from South Carolina,
appeared, and took his seat in the House.

_Reporting the Debates._

The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee to whom was
referred the memorial of Samuel Harrison Smith and Thomas Carpenter,
made yesterday, and which lay on the table; and, the same being again
read, in the words following, to wit:

      "The committee to whom was referred the memorial of Samuel
      Harrison Smith and Thomas Carpenter, report the following
      resolution, which they recommend to the House:

      "_Resolved_, That it is not expedient for this House to
      make any order upon the subject of the memorial of Samuel
      Harrison Smith and Thomas Carpenter, presented on the
      fourth day of December instant."

Mr. CHRISTIE moved the reference of the report to a Committee of the
Whole.

Mr. GRISWOLD opposed the reference.

The House divided--for the reference 43, against it, 46.

Mr. JACKSON made several remarks, and concluded by calling for the yeas
and nays, which were ordered.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, in a Government like ours, the theory of which is
republican, and the practice of which he hoped would always continue to
be republican, he considered the representatives of the people
responsible to the people, by whom they were created. It was necessary,
to give efficacy to this responsibility, that the people, who were to
judge, should possess the purest information, as to not only the acts,
but the motives of the public agents. It was of little consequence to
them to know what laws are enacted, compared with a knowledge of
projects that were attempted or prevented, and the grounds on which they
were supported or opposed. Nor could the merits of the acts themselves
be understood, unless the reasons for them were stated. It was,
therefore, of the highest consequence that the reasons for our conduct
should be clearly understood, that our measures may be comprehended, and
our motives also known, that our constituents may judge whether we have
faithfully discharged our duty.

Under this view of the subject, he thought it extremely indelicate to
resist the admission within the bar of those persons who thought
themselves qualified to take the debates and proceedings of the House.
But what rendered the attempt still more improper, was, its being an
innovation on the practice of the House. For, since he had been a member
of the Legislature, individuals of this description had been placed by
the House at their ease, in a situation convenient for hearing what
passed. Why is this practice, hitherto unopposed, now to be broken in
upon? For such an innovation and departure from the established practice
of the House, there ought to be the strongest reasons; particularly when
the attempted innovation respected, and was made by, those whose conduct
was to be scrutinized.

It was not without deliberation that the practice of the House had been
instituted and adhered to. Some gentlemen had, some time since,
contemplated the employment of a particular individual, whose services
were to be paid for by the House. But the idea was abandoned, from the
supposed sanction given by such an act to his statements; whereby the
House might be made responsible for his accuracy and talents.

The difficulty attending the business he acknowledged to be great. But,
for the reasons he had assigned, he thought the House had acted right in
forbearing to interfere, further than by merely assigning a convenient
place to the stenographers. It was deemed safest to confide the business
to persons not known officially to the House, whose own individual
interest would constitute the best pledge for their fidelity. Though no
precise resolve had been passed to this effect, it was well understood
that this was the course the House meant to pursue, after having given
the subject a deliberate and solemn consideration.

Shall we now, said Mr. N., after this mature consideration, on the mere
suggestion of personal inconvenience, on a subject of such importance as
to invite a gentleman from a considerable distance, [referring to some
old plan,] shall we, after the sanction of a uniform practice, fortified
by the long period for which it has been observed, on the suggestion of
a trifling inconvenience, which, he believed, on examination, would not
be found to exist at all, adopt the innovation proposed by the report of
the committee? For his part, he thought they were all deeply interested
in having the debates well taken, as it was not in their power
altogether to prohibit their being taken.

He had heard but two objections made to the old plan. The first was,
that by passing a resolve admitting stenographers within the bar, the
House gave a sanction to the reports published by them. The second was,
that as the Speaker had heretofore had the management of the business,
it would be wrong to take it out of his hands.

As to the first objection, he thought it altogether incorrect. The
resolution, submitted by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. HILL,)
which he wished the House to adopt, does not propose the selection of
any particular person. It admits, generally, those individuals who wish
to take the debates. Can this admission make us responsible for the
conduct of men we do not know, and over whom we have no control? Have we
heretofore been considered as responsible? And wherein consists the
difference between our past situation and the situation we shall be in,
if the motion of the gentleman from North Carolina be adopted? We shall
then only have done that which before had been done by the Speaker.
Governed by a sense of duty, the Speaker had refused admission within
the bar. It became, therefore, necessary, in order to admit, for the
House to pass a resolution. But it did not follow that the least
responsibility would arise from such an act.

Indeed, by admitting the stenographers within the bar, the
responsibility of the House would be diminished; for, if the House
admitted them, no one could then say that it had done any thing that
interfered with a faithful report of the debates; whereas, by excluding
the stenographers, the unavoidable inaccuracies committed, might be
charged to the House.

The second objection made to the resolution of the gentleman from North
Carolina, was that, as the Speaker had heretofore had the management of
the business, it would be wrong to take it out of his hands.

Mr. N. in reply to this objection, observed, that the power, heretofore
exercised by the Speaker on this subject, had not been expressly
delegated to him by the House. It had often been thought of, but no
decision had heretofore been made. As the object asked related to the
convenience of the members, he thought they were the best judges of the
propriety of granting it. The inconvenience alleged to exist was
entirely a matter of opinion. He thought it either had no existence or a
very limited one. As he had remarked before, the subject was extremely
delicate. He would not consent to furnish room for being charged with a
wish to suppress the means of making an inquiry into his conduct. He
believed that the innovation contended for, would be so viewed; so far,
therefore, from considering it as innocent, he viewed it as wrong in
itself, and likely to be mischievous in its effects.

Mr. OTIS was one of those who was not disposed to make a strong stand
against the resolution offered by the gentleman from North Carolina. He
did not view the point in so interesting a light as did the gentleman
who had preceded him. It appeared to him in the shape of a question of
convenience; and as to his own situation, it could not be affected by
any permission given to stenographers to come within the bar. Many of
the arguments he had heard, implied that the situation at present
occupied by the stenographers was exclusive of all others; whereas if
that were inconvenient they might take any other, so that they did not
come within the bar.

It is true that the stenographers have hitherto been admitted within the
bar. They were admitted because there was room. But, in our present
chamber, the room was less; nor could they occupy a part of that little,
without materially interfering with the convenience of the members.

In his opinion, the proper question for the House to consider was,
whether an admission should take place independent of the Speaker, or
whether he should decide its propriety. It did not follow, if the
Speaker retained the management, that the exclusion would apply to all
occasions. It was true, that the places desired by the stenographers
were generally assigned to the high Executive officers of the
Government, and the foreign Ministers. But if, in consistence with their
accommodation, the indulgence could be granted, during any important
debate, he had no doubt of the Speaker's readiness to admit them, and
they might thus obtain a temporary place within the bar.

Mr. O. thought the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia covered too
much ground. They ascribed to the friends of the report an attempt to
preclude the people from obtaining all information of what passed in the
House. No such design existed. For his part, he wished the people to
know every thing that occurred within these walls. There was no doubt of
the debates, as heretofore given, being an inadequate organ of the ideas
of the members; they had been taken for nearly twelve years, and
sometimes they had been accurate, and at other times very inaccurate;
and so complete had the distortion of sentiments often been, that had
it not been for the name that was attached to a particular speech, the
member, to whom it was ascribed, would not have known it to be his. Mr.
O. would, notwithstanding, not deny the ability of a person who read the
debates, to form a tolerable idea of the arguments used on a particular
subject.

The charge of innovation, Mr. O. thought unjust. He proposed to leave
the business as it had heretofore been left, free from any resolve of
the House, to the control of the Speaker. By this conduct, no sanction
would be given to the performances of any reporter; but, on the other
hand, if the House passed a resolve, divesting the Speaker of his
previous power, they would render themselves responsible, and would
virtually give a sanction.

If it were resolved that the House should interfere, he would much
rather select and pay an individual competent to the business, and
appeal, for the faithful discharge of his trust, to his candor and
impartiality.

If the House passed the resolution admitting the stenographers within
the bar, Mr. O. asked whether they would not in fact be officers of the
House. The only difference between them and the other officers would be
that one would be paid and the others would not.

Mr. O. said that, in his opinion, the most inconvenient position in the
House had been taken by the stenographers. It was near the Clerk's
office, between which and the bar there was a perpetual passage of the
members. If an experiment were made of a position on the other side, or
in the upper gallery, he was persuaded it would be found very
convenient. Are not, said Mr. O., the galleries constructed for the
express purpose of hearing? Are they not intended for the good people of
the United States? And if they can hear in them, cannot the
stenographers also?

Mr. O. concluded by stating the extreme inconvenience that would arise
from admitting the stenographers; the interference it would produce with
the assignation of seats to the Secretaries of our Government and the
foreign Ministers; and with declaring his opinion that it was most
expedient to adopt the report of the committee.

Mr. NICHOLSON said, that if he understood the objections made by the
gentleman from Massachusetts to granting an admission of the
stenographers within the bar, they might be classed under three heads:
1. It will be against precedent; 2. It would prevent the members from
having elbow room; 3. There is a possibility that the Speaker may
indulge the stenographers.

As to the first objection, he would ask whether the House had not a
right to exercise any power themselves that was exercised by the
Speaker. Hitherto the Speaker has exercised the power, and admitted the
stenographers within the bar; he now refuses to do it, and we are called
upon to perform what he refuses. If we think it proper to admit them, we
have a right to do it. The power heretofore exercised by the Speaker
was derived from us, according to the well-known maxim, _Qui facit per
alium, facit per se_.

But we are told that the admission would interfere with the
accommodation of the four Secretaries and the foreign Ministers. Suppose
it should, said Mr. N.; I ask whether the convenience and the interest
of the people of the United States are to be prostrated by our
complaisance to the Secretaries and foreign agents? It is our duty to
enable the people to obtain the best information of what is doing here,
that we can supply. Shall we abandon our duty? Shall we sacrifice the
interests of our constituents to a sense of politeness to these
gentlemen? It would be much better to submit to the inconvenience
experienced by the Secretaries and the foreign Ministers, if there is
not room for them within the bar, than to conceal from the people the
knowledge they have a right to possess. Let, then, the foreign
Ministers, if there be such a competition, retire into the galleries.

He considered the subject as of high importance both to the country and
the members themselves. They all ought to desire their conduct to be
rigidly inspected.

Gentlemen say that the debates have been heretofore imperfectly taken.
Will they remedy the evil by excluding the stenographers from places
within the bar? If, heretofore, notwithstanding the favorableness of
their position, when stillness and silence reigned, they have been
unable to take the debates with precision, can it be expected that,
driven to a distance from most of the members, surrounded by a crowd in
perpetual motion, they will be able more successfully to accomplish
their object? Sir, said Mr. N., the expectation is absurd. It cannot be
done. I have placed myself without the bar, and I declare it impossible
to hear correctly. If, then, you are determined to exclude them from
their usual places, you had infinitely better turn them out of the House
altogether.

As to the convenience of the galleries for hearing, Mr. N. was not able,
from a trial made by himself, to decide upon it. But he had heard but
one uniform opinion, which was, that owing to the constant passage of
persons, and the frequent crowd it would contain, it was impossible to
hear there with any distinctness. With respect to the remarks made by
the gentleman from Massachusetts on this point, he thought them
altogether inapposite. The gallery was not constructed by us, and if it
were a bad place for hearing, it arose not from any fault to be ascribed
to us. All that we did was to open our doors to all citizens who
conducted themselves with decorum.

The personal inconvenience to members alleged, did not, in the opinion
of Mr. N., exist. He thought there was ample room. The chamber they
occupied was similar to that in Philadelphia, and the positions desired
by the stenographers were relatively the same as those in Philadelphia.
By advancing the Clerk's table three feet, every difficulty would be
removed.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, that the members who had preceded him had talked much
about the necessity of giving the people correct information of the
transactions of that House. He believed there was not a single member
who did not wish to impart to the people all the knowledge they could
receive, and who did not highly prize the means of information furnished
by the proceedings of that House. On this point there was no division.
No one was desirous of excluding the stenographers, or prohibiting the
publication of debates. The only question really before the House was,
whether they should persevere in the old plan; whether they should
confide in the integrity and the talents of the Speaker, who had
hitherto merited their confidence, or whether, divesting him of his
power, they should exercise a right themselves hitherto attached to his
office.

Such a mode of procedure as had been pursued on this occasion was not
conformable to that heretofore practised. An application somewhat
similar had been, some time since, made to the Speaker. The Speaker
decided, and the House, without debate, acquiesced in his decision. A
stenographer had grossly misrepresented a member, and when required to
correct his false statement, had insolently refused to do it, and added
to the previous injury of misstatement insult of the most contumelious
kind. The Speaker dismissed him from his place for this barefaced
misconduct. Some of his friends made an appeal to the House. The House
acted wisely, and, with becoming dignity, refused to interpose.

Now, said Mr. R., if any other stenographer, like the one I have alluded
to, shall make it his systematic practice to misrepresent, and he
continue as heretofore to hold his place at the tenure of the Speaker's
permission, he may be dismissed by the Speaker without troubling the
House. But should the motion made by the gentleman from North Carolina
prevail, we shall be perpetually appealed to, and occupied in debate.
For these reasons he trusted the report would be agreed to.

Mr. HILL said he considered the subject as simply involving an address
to the sentiments of the members on the ground of personal convenience,
and that on that ground he was ready to sacrifice any little
inconvenience to the accommodation of the stenographers; stating at the
same time his entire reliance upon the integrity and talents of the
Speaker.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, this is nothing less than an appeal from the Chair.
To the Speaker has heretofore been committed the regulation of the
admission of all persons whatever within the bar. This is the only
correct mode in which such an object can be accomplished. The Speaker
must exercise the discretion hitherto vested in him, otherwise the order
of the House cannot be preserved. The object now is to take this power
from the Speaker, and to open the area of the House to the
stenographers, without the Speaker's approbation. It is said that only
two persons at present apply. But if the door be once opened to
admission in this way, there may be no end to intrusion. The Speaker
being divested of power to act, and the necessity of acting being
evident, the House will be perpetually troubled with appeals.

In his opinion, the power confided to the Speaker had been exercised in
this case with great propriety. It must be apparent to every body that
the area was too small to justify the admission of the stenographers. He
believed it to be an idle pretence that the stenographers could not
hear. He believed it to be a mere matter of pride, which would be
gratified by an appeal from the Chair, and a reversal of the decision of
the Speaker by the House.

Mr. THATCHER, persuaded that all the information derived from the
debates of this House was of little comparative importance when viewed
in relation to the general mass of information possessed by the people,
cared but little for the event of the resolution before the House. Upon
this ground he felt no anxiety whatever. As a matter of order, it might
perhaps be of some importance. As to the convenience of position, he
doubted whether a more correct account of the debates could not be given
from a situation without the bar than within it. His reasons were these:
It was well known that for four or five sessions after the organization
of the Federal Government stenographers never came within the bar, and
their positions during that period were as remote from the members as at
present. Yet if any man would appeal to the debates then taken, he would
find them as correctly taken as they have been at any time since. It is
true, there were complaints of inaccuracy, but the debate takers never
assigned, as a justification of their errors, the inconvenience of their
situations; on the contrary, they declared that they did as well as they
could, and contended that their reports were as correct as the nature of
the case permitted.

When the seat of Government was transferred to Philadelphia, and the
stenographers occupied places within the bar, complaints increased, the
debates were taken more incorrectly, and two or three of the
stenographers were actually turned out of the area within the bar; one
of whom, he believed, was sent into the upper gallery.

The incorrectness of the published debates did not arise so much from an
inability to hear as from an inability to take down a rapid speech.

Mr. T. said he believed the debates as taken down by Mr. Lloyd, were as
accurately taken as any taken before or since. The conclusion he drew
from these facts was, that if the stenographers were admitted by the
House within the bar, the public would gain nothing by it. He had,
however, no objection to their admission, if the Speaker approved it.
They might, as far as he cared, take any place in the House; even seats
alongside of the Speaker.

Mr. DAVIS had expected to hear substantial reasons in support of the
report of the committee. None such had been offered. It was said that
the stenographers could hear very well from their present positions. He
denied it. The reporter could not possibly hear. Though himself nearer
the gentleman, he had not heard a word that fell from the gentleman from
North Carolina.

He trusted the House would admit the stenographers within the bar. If
not admitted, the conversation and passage of the members around them
will at once prevent the debates from being well taken, and be a
perpetual excuse for their errors. But if admitted, they will have no
such apology, and they will be within the power of the House.

The great mass of our citizens are too remote to attend your debates.
They rely on those who report them. Not more than forty or fifty persons
transiently appear in the galleries, who are not equal to diffusing a
knowledge of your proceedings. Exclude the stenographers, and you may as
well shut your doors. It may be said that you print your journals; but
who reads them? They are scarcely read by the members themselves. On
great national questions the people ought to know, not only what you do,
but also the principles that guide you.

The gentleman from South Carolina was willing to place the stenographers
under the coercion of the Speaker, but was unwilling to place them under
the coercion of the House. For his part, he thought differently. He did
not wish to see them at the mercy of the Speaker.

Several allusions had been made to the treatment of a reporter at
Philadelphia, who had been driven from the House by the Speaker. He
recollected the affair, and, in his opinion, the Speaker had in this
case been actuated more by personal enmity, than by any other motive.

Mr. H. LEE next rose. He said he put it upon the candor of his colleague
from Virginia to declare whether, in his opinion, any gentleman in that
House wished to suppress his sentiments, or was disposed to shrink from
an avowal of them. If an individual were to judge from the debate of
to-day he would infer that it was the desire of some members on that
floor to conceal their sentiments from the people. No such thing was the
case. We are as anxious as those who differ with us that the people
should know what we think, say, and do.

The only question was, whether the Speaker shall exercise a certain
power which he can conveniently, and which he has hitherto honorably
exercised, or whether we shall assume it with all its inconveniences. He
hoped we should not. He feared no inaccuracy so long as the debates
published received no sanction from the House.

Have you, said Mr. L., no greater objects to engage your attention than
whether this man or that man shall go out of your bar, or remain within
it? He thought the House might be better employed.

Mr. MACON understood the subject before the House very much as his
colleague did. The question was simply whether we will take upon
ourselves inconveniences alleged to exist, or keep the stenographers
without the bar. He was convinced that the situations occupied by the
stenographers were badly calculated for hearing, as even within the bar
the members could scarcely hear each other.

One reason had great weight with him. It was, that if the House made a
rule in relation to the admission of the stenographers, it would be
placing law in the room of discretion. He preferred a certain rule to a
vague discretion.

The danger apprehended from a crowd of stenographers was farcical. Since
he had been in Congress he had never seen more than three or four. And
if the number admitted should prove inconvenient, it would be time
enough, when the inconvenience was experienced, to remedy it.

Mr. S. SMITH said the question was entirely one of inconvenience. He
would not ascribe to any member a desire to suppress his sentiments. The
speeches never went forth as delivered. Yet it was desirable to assign
to the stenographers the most convenient places. He had heard gentlemen
on both sides of the chair declare they would experience no
inconvenience from the admission of the stenographers. For himself, from
his situation, he could experience none. He believed, indeed, that the
members could be heard from any part of the House, and nearly as well in
one place as in another. But as other gentlemen hold a different
opinion, and the stenographers had hitherto been admitted within the
bar, he had not the least objection, and would vote for their admission.

In this stage of the debate, the SPEAKER arose, not, he said, to inquire
into the consequences of the House acting in the business, but again to
repeat the line of conduct he had pursued, and the motives which had
influenced his conduct; he did this for the information of members not
in the House at the time he had before addressed the House. The SPEAKER
then repeated what he had before stated, viz: that on being appealed to
by Mr. Stewart, he had declared to him his decision before any other
application had been made; that he had spoken to many members, all of
whom, without a single exception, had approved his ideas, and concluded
with again declaring, as he had before declared, that the stenographers
could not be admitted within the bar without violating the order of the
House and the convenience of the members. It was, he said, for the House
to decide--to them only was he responsible.

Mr. NICHOLAS understood it to be the object of those who supported the
admission of the stenographers within the bar to place them upon the
same footing they had heretofore held. This was his object. All the
remarks, therefore, made respecting their independence of the Chair,
were inapplicable. They would still be subject to his control, except as
to the single point of situation. In short, the business would be
restored to its old form.

His colleague had made an appeal to his candor. He wished to know
whether he (Mr. N.) thought that he or any other gentleman in that House
wished to suppress his sentiments, or was disposed to shrink from an
avowal of them? He would answer the appeal made by his colleague, and
would tell him that he did not feel himself at liberty to form
conjectures respecting the opinions of others, but decided from facts.
If he heard gentlemen make use of arguments so weak as those he had
heard that day in defence of their sentiments, he would say that their
feelings differed essentially from his. He would say that, judging them
by their arguments, they do not wish publicity to be given to the
debates of this House.

What do the gentlemen tell us? Does it not amount to this: that their
complaisance for the Speaker suffers him to judge for them in a case
where they are the best judges; and would not this complaisance go to
this length, that if the Speaker should judge wrong, they will not
interfere to correct his error?

We are told by a gentleman just up, that the application made proceeds
from pride, and that it can proceed from nothing else. But the gentleman
has not assigned his reasons for this extraordinary charge.

It is contended that any place without the bar will be convenient for
the stenographers. Let the place be pointed out. Let the gentlemen who
urge this show us a place without the bar inaccessible to the whispers
of the members and the pressure of a crowd. Do they imagine that any
particular place can be assigned to which they can ensure a profound
silence, and from which every person can be withheld? Do they not know,
have they not experienced, that when business presses, when subjects of
importance are discussed, a crowd is produced, noise ensues, and
interposing obstacles render it impossible either to hear or see the
members? In such cases, by far the most interesting that can occur, a
recess within the bar can be their only protection.

The gentleman from Massachusetts had put the business upon a very
extraordinary footing--a footing that he did not expect from him. He
represented that it would be safe to trust the reporters to the
Speaker's indulgence. For his part, he did not think it would be safe in
such hands. Shall the Speaker have the discretion of saying what debates
shall be taken and what shall not? Shall he, and he only, have the
public ear? Could the Speaker desire this? Surely he could not. He ought
rather to desire the House to decide generally than thus impose upon him
such an invidious task.

Mr. N. said, he considered those who report the debates as appearing in
this House on behalf of the people of the United States, to whom they
communicated what passed here. The people were entitled to this
information; and if, as observed by the gentleman from Massachusetts,
either foreign Ministers or Secretaries, or any other gentleman in long
robes, interfered with such an object, they ought to give way. He knew
not wherein consisted the propriety of assigning them particular seats.
What right had they to exclusive seats? He knew no connection that
subsisted between them and this House. Be the right as it may, he was
not for sacrificing a solid benefit to mere complaisance.

But a gentleman has told us that one stenographer, for his
misrepresentation and insolence, had been discharged by the Speaker. In
the course of debate, Mr. N. said, he had studiously avoided any
allusion to this circumstance. Nor would he now say any thing about it,
as he thought it altogether foreign from the present question.

The respect which gentlemen expressed for the Speaker appeared to him to
lead them from the object they professed to have in view. For, at
present, the stenographers are not under the control of the Speaker. But
admit them within the bar, and if they are guilty of misconduct, if they
infringe any of the rules of the House, the Speaker has them within his
power.

Some gentlemen apprehend the admission of a crowd of stenographers. The
thing is morally impossible. When Congress met in a large populous city,
where several daily papers were printed, we saw but two reporters. Here,
removed from the busy world, where the demand for that description of
labor which arose from publishing the debates was not nearly so great,
and, of consequence, the profit less, it could not be expected that
there could be more.

Mr. N. concluded by declaring that, in his opinion, it was the duty of
the House to decide in this case. The Speaker had changed the
established practice of the House. It became, therefore, the House to
inquire whether he had done what he ought to have done; which, if he had
omitted to do, it devolved on them to see effected.

Mr. WALN spoke in favor of the adoption of the report.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on agreeing to the report
of the select committee, and carried by the casting vote of the Speaker.
There being yeas 45, nays 45, as follows:

      YEAS.--Theodore Sedgwick, (Speaker,) George Baer, Bailey
      Bartlett, John Bird, John Brown, Christopher G. Champlin,
      William Cooper, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John
      Davenport, Franklin Davenport, John Dennis, William Edmond,
      Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn,
      Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William
      Barry Grove, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger, James H.
      Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Lee, Silas Lee, James
      Linn, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Robert Page,
      Josiah Parker, Jonas Platt, Levin Powell, John Read, Nathan
      Read, John Rutledge, jr., John C. Smith, Samuel Tenney,
      George Thatcher, John Chew Thomas, Richard Thomas, Peleg
      Wadsworth, Robert Waln, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop,
      Robert Brown, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, William C. C.
      Claiborne, John Condit, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson,
      George Dent, Joseph Dickson, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas
      Elmendorph, Samuel Goode, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A.
      Hanna, Joseph Heister, William H. Hill, David Holmes,
      George Jackson, James Jones, Aaron Kitchell, Michael Leib,
      Nathaniel Macon, Peter Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John
      Nicholas, Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, John Smilie,
      John Smith, Samuel Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Richard
      Stanford, David Stone, Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Taliaferro,
      John Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Lyttleton W.
      Tazewell, Philip Van Cortlandt, and Joseph B. Varnum.


WEDNESDAY, December 10.

Another member, to wit, MATTHEW LYON, from Vermont, appeared, and took
his seat in the House.

_Mausoleum to Washington._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for erecting a
Mausoleum to the memory of GEORGE WASHINGTON.

Mr. ALSTON was in hopes, when he first made the motion now under
consideration, that a question would have been taken upon the amendment
without debate; but, as his wish upon that subject had not been complied
with, he held it to be his duty to give to the House the reasons which
actuated him.

He said that he by no means wished to detract any thing from the merit
of that illustrious character whose memory we were now about to
perpetuate; that it was his wish that his character might be handed to
the latest posterity unimpaired, and that he really thought the
amendment equally calculated to effect that desirable purpose with the
bill; that the difference of expense was a matter of importance to the
people of this country; that the expense of a mausoleum, from the best
information he had been able to collect, would amount to at least 150 or
$200,000; that a monument, such as was contemplated by the amendment,
would not cost more than one tenth as much as a mausoleum, as
contemplated by the bill as it now stood. Indeed, he believed that the
bare expense of interring the remains of General WASHINGTON in a
mausoleum would cost as much as the proposed monument.

Mr. A. said he considered Congress pledged, as far as the resolution of
the last session went; that the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.
OTIS,) who was up a few day ago upon this subject, had requested
information; in answer to which he had only to observe that if that
gentleman would have given himself the trouble to have examined the
proceedings of the last session of Congress he would have been better
informed than he appeared to be; that a committee equally respectable
with that which had reported the bill at the present time, had then
fully investigated the subject, and had made a report, which was to be
found upon the journals of the last session of Congress, recommending a
monument such as was contemplated by the proposed amendment, and that
the request made by the President of the United States to Mrs.
Washington, in conformity to the report of that committee, was for a
monument; to which request she had consented; he, therefore, considered
Congress as pledged thus far and no farther; that a motion was made in
this House to change the monument to a mausoleum; that the recent death
of General WASHINGTON at that time, prevented any person from opposing
any measure which was offered, let the expense be what it would; but
that the time which had elapsed since, had enabled the public mind the
better to judge.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. LEE) and the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. GRISWOLD) had dwelt a great deal upon the subject of public
gratitude. It was by no means his wish or intention to lessen that
sentiment, but he said that he could not give his consent to an
expensive measure like that contemplated in the bill, when a measure far
less expensive, in his opinion, would answer every purpose as well.

Mr. ALSTON was followed by Mr. HUGER, who advocated the erection of a
mausoleum.

Mr. SMILIE replied. He considered the erection of a mausoleum as
productive of unnecessary expense, as a monument would answer every
rational purpose contemplated in the bill.

Mr. H. LEE next spoke at some length in favor of a mausoleum, and read a
letter received from Mr. King, our Ambassador at London enclosing a
plan, presented to him by an eminent foreign artist, for a mausoleum of
one hundred and fifty feet base, and the same height, the expense of
which was estimated at $170,000.

Mr. CHAMPLIN, after some remarks, moved that the committee rise, report
progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Which motion being carried without a division, the committee rose; and
on the question to grant them leave to sit again, only three members
rose in the affirmative.

Mr. CHAMPLIN then moved the recommitment of the bill to the same
committee that reported it, with the addition of two members, which was
carried, and Messrs. CLAIBORNE and CHAMPLIN appointed.

After Mr. CHAMPLIN'S motion for a recommitment of the bill to a select
committee was carried,

Mr. CLAIBORNE said he had risen to move that the committee just
appointed be instructed to inquire into the expediency of carrying into
effect a resolution passed by the old Congress, on the 7th of August,
1783, directing an equestrian statue of General WASHINGTON to be erected
at the place where the residence of Congress shall be established.

Mr. C. said, that on a question which could not fail to excite the
sensibility of every American heart, it was a subject of great regret
that a division of sentiment should arise. The memory of our departed
patriot lives in the affections of a grateful country, and will triumph
over time. During a long life, so usefully and honorably employed,
WASHINGTON had reared to himself a fabric of fame, the lustre of which
can neither be diminished nor heightened by any measure that we can
take. But, sir, from a respect for our own, as well as for the feelings
of the nation, we should endeavor to unite in the last act of attention
which we propose to show this venerable character.

Mr. C. said that the proposition for a mausoleum was calculated to
create division. The expense of such a monument would be immense, and
would be viewed by many as a profuse and useless expenditure of the
public money. He believed that the statue recommended by the old
Congress could be better justified upon principles of economy, and would
meet with more general support. Here Mr. C. read from the journals of
the old Congress the following resolutions:

      "_Resolved_, (unanimously, ten States being present,) That
      an equestrian statue of General WASHINGTON be erected at
      the place where the residence of Congress shall be
      established.

      "_Resolved_, That the statue be of bronze--the General to
      be represented in a Roman dress, holding a truncheon in his
      right hand, and his head encircled with a laurel wreath.
      The statue to be supported by a marble pedestal, on which
      are to be represented, in basso relievo, the following
      principal events of the war, in which General WASHINGTON
      commanded in person, viz: The evacuation of Boston--the
      capture of the Hessians at Trenton--the battle of
      Princeton--the action of Monmouth--and the surrender of
      York. On the upper part of the front of the pedestal, to be
      engraved as follows: 'The United States in Congress
      assembled ordered this statue to be erected, in the year of
      our Lord, 1783, in honor of GEORGE WASHINGTON, the
      illustrious Commander-in-chief of the Armies of the United
      States of America, during the war which vindicated and
      secured their liberty, sovereignty, and independence."'

A monument thus designed, (continued Mr. C.,) would portray in lively
colors the military achievements of our late illustrious Chief, and is
calculated to impress upon our posterity a grateful recollection of his
eminent services. Mr. C. was the more interested in support of a
monument of this kind, because it had been sanctioned by a unanimous
vote of those venerable philosophers and statesmen who presided in our
councils, at a time of the greatest danger, directed the storm of war,
and tamed the rage of tyranny.

It was true, that this equestrian statue would not express any of the
great events of WASHINGTON's civil life, but, of these, we have already
many honorable testimonials; the first in order, and which he hoped
would be the last in durability, was the Constitution of the United
States; to this instrument his name was annexed, and would be noticed
with gratitude by the lovers of freedom in every age and every clime;
this city is another memento of his civil life, and, if it should be the
residence of all that piety, wisdom, and magnanimity, which was so
devoutly prayed for by each branch of the Legislature, at the
commencement of the present session, this city would remain an honorable
testimonial of the civil virtues of its great founder.

There was no doubt, said Mr. C., but that many gentlemen were also
solicitous that the body of General WASHINGTON should be deposited
within the walls of the Capitol; of this number Mr. C. was one, and was
desirous that a plain but neat apartment should be speedily prepared for
its reception. But over his remains, instead of an expensive monument,
Mr. C. thought it most advisable to place a plain but neat tomb-stone,
of American marble, and prepared by an American artist. And in order to
convey to posterity, in impressive language, the feelings of the
American nation, when the loss of our patriot, sage, and hero, was first
announced, Mr. C. wished to see engraved upon this tomb the addresses of
each House of Congress upon this occasion to the President of the United
States, together with the President's replies thereto.

Mr. C. concluded by moving the instructions stated in the commencement
of his speech.

Mr. CLAIBORNE was followed by Messrs. CRAIK and NOTT.

The instruction to the committee, moved by Mr. CLAIBORNE, with a slight
modification, was agreed to.


MONDAY, December 15.

Another member, to wit, THOMAS PINCKNEY, from South Carolina, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.


THURSDAY, December 18.

Another member, to wit, JAMES SHEAFE, from New Hampshire, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.


FRIDAY, December 19.

_Mausoleum to Washington._

Mr. H. LEE, from the committee to whom was referred the several
propositions made commemorative of the services of GEORGE WASHINGTON,
reported a bill for the erection of a mausoleum, differing in no other
respects from the former bill reported, except as to the materials of
which the mausoleum is to be constructed; the present bill directing it
to be made of stone, the former one directing it to be made of marble.
He said that the committee, after maturely considering the relative
merits of all the plans proposed, had preferred the mausoleum, as well
from its superior durability as cheapness, to any other.


TUESDAY, December 23.

_Mausoleum to Washington._

Mr. H. LEE moved the going into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for
erecting a mausoleum to GEORGE WASHINGTON.

On this question the House divided--yeas 42, nays 34.

Mr. MORRIS took the chair, and read the bill by paragraphs.

Mr. H. LEE said the merits of the bill had been so often discussed, and
the subject was so delicate, that he would not again offer his
sentiments generally on it. As it was the opinion of several members,
that the dimensions of the mausoleum should not be fixed in the law, but
that they should be governed by the sum appropriated, he moved to strike
out "100 feet at the base and of proportionate dimensions."

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. H. LEE then moved an amendment confining the ground on which the
mausoleum should be erected to public property.

Mr. HARPER opposed the amendment, which was lost, only 31 members rising
in favor of it.

Mr. H. LEE then moved to fill the blank, fixing the sum to be
appropriated for erecting the mausoleum, with $200,000.

Mr. SMILIE said he hoped the House would not with its eyes open go into
a measure that might involve incalculable expense. It was proposed to
appropriate $200,000. This was probably but a small part of what would
be ultimately required; and when the thing was once begun, it must be
completed, cost what it would. If the architect would give security for
accomplishing the work for $200,000 he would not be so much opposed to
it. But, as it stood, he was opposed to it, as a useless expenditure of
public money.

Mr. HARPER said the old story was again rung in their ears. An object,
in itself highly important, was proposed, and, forsooth, because it cost
some money, on the ground of economy it must be rejected.

He would ask the gentleman just up whether he knew any thing about the
expense of a mausoleum? And yet not professing to be informed,
professing indeed to know little, he had put his vague conjectures in
the room of estimates formed with deliberation by artists of the first
eminence. These clamorous objections were well understood. Their sole
object was _ad captandum vulgus_; to create alarm about what was termed
useless expense. They were intended for nothing else.

To satisfy the solicitude of gentlemen an artist of talents universally
acknowledged had been desired to furnish an estimate; which estimate
stated that a pyramid of 100 feet base would cost $67,000. This was the
estimate of an artist of such accuracy that in the greatest work ever
undertaken in America, and the greatest, perhaps, of its kind, ever
undertaken in the world, (he alluded to the water works of
Philadelphia,) the expense actually incurred had fallen short of the
estimate. The same accuracy had characterized his plan and execution of
the Bank of Pennsylvania, which was probably the greatest work of the
kind executed in this country. And yet the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will place his vague doubts, and (Mr. HARPER begged pardon for the
expression) his total want of knowledge against the calculations of a
man of practical science.

The gentleman had asked whether any one could be found, who would be
responsible for the execution of the work for the proposed sum. Mr.
HARPER said, if it were proper for a member of that House to say so, he
would undertake himself to erect a mausoleum of 150 feet base, and 150
feet high, for $200,000; and for the performance of his engagement he
could give the most unquestionable security, such as every member of
that House would approve. He further believed that the artist before
alluded to, if required, would give the necessary security. The accuracy
of the estimate had been tested by every circumstance that the nature of
the case admitted. The same course had been pursued, in this case, that
every reasonable man was accustomed to take in his own private concerns.
Every such individual, who designed building a house obtained first an
estimate from a skilful workman, which satisfied him. If men acted not
in this way, there could be no progress in human improvements.

After this information, furnished by such an artist, gentlemen ought to
be satisfied without opposing to it their own crude conceptions; and Mr.
HARPER said he hoped they would cease to talk on a subject on which they
were so ignorant, until they became better informed.

Mr. MACON did not see the subject in the same light with the gentleman
from South Carolina. He was disposed to pay the greatest respect to his
talents, but he could not give up his own opinion. The estimates made by
the artist amounted to $140,000; yet the gentleman from Virginia
required $200,000. Does not this show that the gentlemen themselves have
not confided in the estimate of the artist?

Mr. H. LEE explained, and said that he thought the most proper plan for
adoption was that of Mr. West; pursuing that plan, $200,000 might be
required, as there would be interior arrangements to make, additional to
those contemplated by the estimate.

Mr. MACON said he thought $140,000 would be sufficient. He knew not how
to reconcile the difference between the estimate made in Philadelphia
and that made in Washington; the first was only $67,000; which was a sum
much below any calculated here. He did not pretend to any information on
this subject, and the various modifications the bill had undergone,
convinced him that no member was well acquainted with it. The estimates
differed materially from each other. They could not therefore all be
correct. He could not, from these considerations, feel confidence in the
estimates of the gentleman from South Carolina, or the other gentleman;
for if they really possessed correct information, how came they so
radically to differ; and the committee itself to propose so many
alterations in the original bill?

Mr. SMILIE replied to Mr. HARPER. The object of his remarks was, to show
that Mr. H. possessed as little information on the subject as himself.

Mr. RUTLEDGE.--The substance of what the gentleman says, is that he
wants to do nothing. He had long thought so, and he was now confirmed in
his opinion. When the man, whose loss the world deplored, departed from
us, we were all shrouded with sorrow; the mournful event awakened our
deepest regrets; and resolutions expressive of the national affliction
at his death, and commemorative of his services, were unanimously passed
by both Houses of Congress. Those resolutions were not carried into
immediate effect, owing to the disagreement of the two branches of the
Legislature. Now, when we propose to carry them into effect, objections
are started to every measure offered; objections that rise eternally in
our horizon; which, whenever we pursue, fly from our reach, and which,
always moving in a circle, we can never overtake.

Gentlemen tell us they are unaccustomed to spend public money without
estimates. To satisfy the vigilance of their economy we obtain them.
They then tell us they are inaccurate; their objection arises from a
want of detail; they wish a minute statement of each separate charge.
Again, we consent to gratify their wishes, anxious for their sanction to
our measures, that they may express the unanimous sentiment of Congress.
We produce an estimate as minute as was ever furnished by an artist on
any occasion. The total amount of estimated expense is $140,000, and to
avoid the necessity of calling on Congress again, the gentleman from
Virginia asks for $200,000.

Still, after all our trouble and solicitude to satisfy the scruples of
gentlemen, they continue to urge objections. One gentleman says the
estimate made at Philadelphia differs from that made here; another
gentleman will not confide in any estimate, and another wants security.

Does it become the dignity of the House thus to be occupied with
trifling objections on such a subject; and, in the spirit of bargaining,
to waste its time in saving a few dollars?

Many gentlemen, anxious for this measure, had agreed to postpone the
consideration of it, hoping thereby to accommodate other gentlemen in
their views, and expecting ultimately a unanimous vote. But he now
abandoned it. He saw no period to objections. Much time had already been
idly wasted. They had delayed too long to do what ought to have been
done at once. Let us then take the question at once, and get rid of it,
though a veto should be passed upon the bill.

The question was then taken on filling up the blank with $200,000, and
carried--yeas 41, nays 38.

Mr. DENT moved to amend the section appropriating the sum, by
substituting the word "for," in the room of the word "towards," which
would fix the whole sum to be appropriated, instead of leaving it
uncertain. Agreed to.

The committee then rose and reported the bill as amended. On the
question to agree to the $200,000 appropriated, the House divided--yeas
41, nays 38.

The SPEAKER then put the question on engrossing the bill for a third
reading.

Mr. CLAIBORNE was opposed to the engrossing of the bill. He hoped no
gentleman would ascribe his opposition to a want of respect to the
memory of our great patriot. His respect for this illustrious character
had been almost coeval with his life, and would follow him to his grave.

He was opposed to a mausoleum, because it would not be so respectful to
the memory of WASHINGTON, as the equestrian statue directed by the old
Congress, who had directed the battle during our Revolutionary struggle,
and for whose character he felt the highest veneration. The present
Government could not refuse to carry into effect this act of the old
Congress, without a violation of moral principle. He preferred a statue
to a mausoleum, because the former, from representing the form and the
features, would inspire the beholder with more lively emotions than a
mass of stones formed into a pyramid.

Were the expense of a statue greater than that of a mausoleum, he would,
notwithstanding, prefer it; but he believed the reverse would be the
fact. He not only wished a statue raised, but also was in favor of an
immediate appropriation for depositing the remains of our departed
friend within these very walls, in such a manner as would not disgrace
them.

Mr. CHAMPLIN had heretofore voted from a spirit of conciliation. He was
now not a little surprised to find the gentlemen from Tennessee and
South Carolina (Mr. CLAIBORNE and Mr. ALSTON) opposed to a mausoleum,
though their names appeared, from an inspection of the journals of last
session, among those who were then in favor of it.

He considered a mausoleum as preferable to a statue, because the first
was calculated to celebrate all the virtues of the statesman, as well as
the hero, while the latter would be limited to his military exploits.

Great opposition had been made to the erection of a mausoleum, with the
professed view of avoiding expense, and I admit generally that economy
ought to be observed, in the expenditure of public money. But on an
occasion highly interesting to the feelings, and deeply involving the
character of the nation, even the appearance of parsimony should be
carefully avoided. It is necessary to consider the nature and magnitude
of the object for which money is required. It is not asked for, in the
present instance, to commemorate a man distinguished only on the field
of battle. It is not wanted to gratify family pride, or to raise a
monument of despotic power and slavish submission. It is to be furnished
by a great and free people, to record, in a manner worthy of themselves,
their gratitude for the important services rendered to them by one of
their fellow-citizens; the fruits of which I cannot but hope will be
enjoyed and recognized by future generations. We are called upon by the
public voice to erect a monument suited to the character of WASHINGTON,
who has been emphatically styled, _the man of the age_, and whose
virtues may, by the record we shall make of them, become the property of
distant ages.

These virtues will doubtless be the theme of some able biographer, and
it is wished that posterity may not search in vain for some striking
evidence of our acknowledgment of them. It is indeed of infinite
importance to civil society, that the memory of that great man should be
perpetuated by every means in our power. We may thus sow the seeds of
virtue, honor, and patriotism, in our country. He will be held up a
model, to which the finger of wisdom will constantly point, to which the
attention of youth will be irresistibly drawn, and the mind of every man
aspiring to pre-eminence among a free people, will be riveted. The
proposed mausoleum would be a structure well calculated to resist the
ravages of time. As to the hand of man, at least of civilized man, we
need not guard against it. The depository of the ashes of WASHINGTON
will never be assailed by it. It may indeed be attacked by the ruthless
hand of some invading barbarian. But its only security against such an
attack must be derived from the courage and fortitude of the people of
the United States. And I trust they will never tamely yield up the land
of their forefathers.

Mr. BIRD was against the bill, because it proposed the erection of a
mausoleum, which would not be equal to the object for which it was
raised without the expenditure of a vast sum of money; whereas a statue
could be made, somewhat correspondent to the occasion, for a moderate
sum. It was in vain for gentlemen to talk about a structure commensurate
to the object. Such a thing was impossible. He moved the recommitment of
the bill to a Committee of the whole House.

The question being put, the House divided--ayes 39, noes 39; and it
passed in the negative by the casting vote of the SPEAKER.

Mr. SHEPARD said, I will do as much as any man to honor the memory of
WASHINGTON. I have fought and bled with him several times. I have always
supported and will continue to support him. But on the score of expense,
I think we are going too far. I will go so far as to have his remains
placed decently within these walls. Further I will not go; for I do not
think we have a right to throw away the public money.

Mr. MACON delivered his reasons against a mausoleum, and in favor of an
equestrian statue; and among other remarks, said, the idea that a
mausoleum would be equal to the character of WASHINGTON, was
preposterous. Few individuals in the world were capable of drawing his
character. In a few words, he would say that no character that had ever
lived was equal to him, and it was his firm belief, that the world would
never see his equal.

Mr. BROWN thought General WASHINGTON the best man that had ever lived;
and he was surprised at the ideas of gentlemen on the ground of expense.
If the mausoleum were agreed to, it would not cost each person in the
United States four cents; and if the equestrian statue were also made,
(which he hoped would also be done, for the sake of general
accommodation,) it would not cost more than two cents. It seemed to him
that some gentlemen were averse to doing any thing, though they did not
wish the people to think so.

Mr. ALSTON would not have risen, had he not been marked by the gentleman
from Rhode Island as an object of inconsistency.

Mr. CHAMPLIN explained by saying he did not mean to censure the
gentleman for his change of opinion, for which he doubtless had good
reasons.

Mr. ALSTON.--Let the measures of Congress be reviewed, and it would
appear, that the House itself and the gentleman from Rhode Island had
been as inconsistent as himself. He would appeal to the gentleman
whether it was more honorable to desert his duty and fly a vote, than to
act as he had done?

Mr. HUGER said it was unnecessary at this time to take into view the old
arguments that had been urged. The proposition of the gentleman from
Tennessee, for an equestrian statue, was the only one he should notice.
So impressed was he with the inadequacy of a common statue to express
the gratitude of America, that he would rather have nothing done, than
to have what was done in this backhanded way.

He was disposed to treat with respect the acts of the old Congress. But
the act, to which the gentleman from Tennessee had alluded, and which he
wished this House exclusively to carry into effect, was passed in
reference to the military exploits of Gen. WASHINGTON, because, at the
time it was passed, his life had been most characterized by them. Since
that period circumstances had changed. If we are bound by the acts of
the old Congress, are we not equally bound by those of the last session?
If you adopt the ideas of the gentleman, do you not hold out the
Commander-in-chief of the American Army as deserving a splendid
monument, and the father of the constitution and other great civil acts
as deserving nothing?

Without any concert whatever, a remarkable concurrence had taken place
between West, Trumbull, and other respectable artists, who all gave an
unequivocal preference to a mausoleum; which, in his opinion, would be
far less expensive than a statue. The expense of the latter, as would
appear from an estimate in the office of the Secretary of State, could
not be less than forty thousand guineas, deliverable at Paris; and when
the additional charges of transportation, insurance, and other
incidental expenses, were considered, he was persuaded it could not be
completed for less than two or three hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. J. C. SMITH considered the Government as pledged to do that which
they had promised, and which the national feeling required.

Mr. RANDOLPH must consider the present as a tedious and useless debate.
The gentleman had declared the Government to be pledged. To whom were
they pledged, and for what? It was to the relics of the deceased; to
have them placed within these walls. For this, there were the strongest
reasons, as such a measure would be agreeable to the venerable lady to
whom he had been united. If then they were so pledged, why violate this
pledge, by referring the business to the Secretary of State, of the
Treasury, of War, and of the Navy; though what connection there was
between the office of the Secretary of the Navy and the performance of
the trust, he could not tell?

One consideration with him was insuperable. The departure from the
original plan tended, unjustly, and most cruelly, (however pure the
intention,) to violate the feelings of a lady, so much troubled already.

Mr. J. C. SMITH said it had been declared by some gentlemen that the
reputation of WASHINGTON might be safely confided to the record of
history. Was it the opinion of those gentlemen that the record was to be
found in the charge of murder against that illustrious character? Was it
to be found in the patriotic effusions of men who had pronounced all
expressions of national gratitude a mockery of woe, and had declared
that it was high time for those who were the sincere apostles of liberty
to be done with such foolery; or was it to be found in the denunciations
of a printer, supported by a State that perpetually boasted its regard
to Republicanism?

Mr. HARPER could not but regret that a gentleman, who possessed so
lively a regret for the venerable lady alluded to, should have exhibited
in this discussion so glaring a contrast between his professions and his
actions, by introducing that lady into the debate, and indelicately
expressing her wishes, in reference to the place where the relics of her
deceased partner should be deposited. Was it conceivable that to her the
place could be of any importance? Or was it possible that this House
could be enslaved by the trifling circumstance of the _locus in quo_, or
that the paltry consideration attending an action of trespass could be
gravely introduced into such a debate. All that this venerable lady says
amounts to this, that, accustomed from the example of her deceased
friend to obey the national wishes, she submitted to that disposition of
his remains that Congress may make. Shall we, then, in violation of the
plain meaning of her words, enter into whispers of hearsay respecting
wishes, which, from his knowledge of her good sense, he was persuaded
had never been uttered?

Mr. RANDOLPH rose to explain. He had neither said, nor intended to say,
that he possessed any knowledge beside that which appeared on the
journals; and from that knowledge he was justified in saying that Mrs.
WASHINGTON'S compliance, as expressed by her, was not with any public
will that might be expressed, but with that will which had been already
expressed. Whatever insinuations the gentleman from South Carolina may
mean to convey, his feelings of respect for every woman were sacred; nor
were they limited to that sex alone. He was not disposed on this
occasion to take the advice of the gentleman, who judging me by his own
heart, said Mr. R., may imagine me capable of disrespect to the sex.

Mr. HARPER wished the gentleman would avoid any further interruption,
and reserve his remarks until he was done. He did not know, nor was he
concerned to inquire into the motives of the gentleman from Virginia.
Such inquiry would, of all others, be the least profitable or
interesting, either to the House or to himself. Neither had he any idea
of giving advice which that gentleman would follow. He well knew that it
was the most hopeless of all things to give advice to one whose own
sense of propriety did not tell him what was right. Those, who were
incapable of receiving lessons from their own minds or feelings, were
not likely to receive them from any other quarter.

The feelings ascribed to Mrs. WASHINGTON were unfounded. The lady was
incapable of entering into trifling disputes about place or time, such
as the House had this day witnessed.

The arguments, by which the superiority of a statue to a mausoleum was
attempted to be established, were fallacious. The form and features of
our illustrious friend would be preserved without the erection of any
statue by us. Pictures by celebrated artists were every where multiplied
and caught at with avidity; and the sculptor and the painter will be
employed unceasingly to keep pace with the increasing demand. Likenesses
may be found every where, and as perfect on the other side of the
Atlantic as on this.

A mausoleum would last for ages, and would present the same imperishable
appearance two thousand years hence, that it would now. Whereas a statue
would only remain until some civil convulsion, or foreign invasion, or
flagitious conqueror, or lawless mob, should dash it into atoms; or till
some invading barbarian should transport it as a trophy of his guilt to
a foreign shore.

I have beheld, said Mr. H., a monument erected to a man, once considered
as the patron of America, defaced, mutilated, its head broken off,
prostrated with the ground. A statue, erected by the Legislature of
Virginia to perpetuate the virtues of a man to future ages, had been
destroyed.

Besides, a statue was minute, trivial, and perishable. It was a
monument erected to all that crowd of estimable but subordinate
personages, that soar in a region, elevated indeed above common
character, but which was infinitely below that occupied by WASHINGTON.

The greatest honor which this country ever has received, the greatest
honor which it ever could receive, was derived from numbering with its
sons the immortal WASHINGTON.

Shall then a mistaken spirit of economy, and a still more mistaken
jealousy arrest us? Honor him, it is true, we cannot. The world has
charged itself with that task. Posterity, as long as the world shall
endure, will celebrate his virtues and his talents; those virtues and
talents of which every ingredient of their happiness will be a perpetual
evidence. But though we cannot honor him, we may dishonor ourselves;
though we cannot increase the lustre of his fame, we may show our own
meanness, cowardice, spite, and malice; and show an astonished world
that we are deplorably unworthy of the high honor conferred by Nature in
giving us a WASHINGTON.

I am, said Mr. H., awfully impressed by the subject. I sink under the
sublimity that surrounds it. No words can reach it; mine are totally
inadequate; to the feelings of the House then it must be submitted:
they, after anticipating all that genius or eloquence can say, will
still far surpass their boldest effusions.

Mr. RANDOLPH was very unfortunately situated, as he was compelled to
rise, not in his own defence, but in defence of the calumniated
reputation of that State which he revered, since from it he derived his
birth.

I will not, said Mr. R., enter into an elucidation of the motives of the
gentleman from South Carolina, which have produced so much asperity, and
such a virulence of rancor against the State of Virgina, but will
confine myself to the question on engrossing the bill.

The gentleman has talked to us about his disregard for the _locus in
quo_. Mr. R. said he cared as little for the _quo modo_, as the
gentleman did for the _locus in quo_.

He had further told us that a statue might be overthrown by a licentious
mob; and that this had actually been the case in the State of Virginia.
But, why had it been so? Because that statue had been erected in the
life-time of the person it celebrated; because it had been erected under
the Colonial Government; and because, like every other fetter of
tyranny, it was broken by the Revolutionary spirit that established our
liberties.

But, says the gentleman, statues are raised for subordinate men, for
this admiral or that general, who may deserve well of their country, but
who do not merit the highest distinctions of national gratitude. If this
measure of raising a mausoleum is to be only a cover for obtaining
statues for temporary and secondary and trifling characters, it may have
a very alarming influence upon us.

It is not easy, for a man of even less sensibility than myself, to hear
in silence the State in which I was born, and one of whose
Representatives I am, calumniated in the manner in which it had been
that day, by the gentlemen from Connecticut and South Carolina. In
defence of that State, actuated by a love to it, and not from any
respect to its detractors; not to repel any imputation of meanness, of
cowardice, of malice, which the gentleman from South Carolina has called
ours, (meaning, I suppose, his own,) I will inform him, and the
gentleman from Connecticut, that that State was the first to celebrate
the fame of the Hero of America, by erecting a statue to him in the
Capitol at Richmond.

The gentleman from Connecticut objects to a confidence in the record of
the historian. Does the gentleman wish to suppress the history of the
political events of 1776? Or does he believe that these events will be
handed down in association with the bloody buoy, and Porcupine's works?
Perhaps he has formed from his own mind a proper selection for our
children, and is against the press handing down any thing else?

Mr. H. said, that the gentleman from Virginia had misstated what he had
said. He had cast no reflection on the State of Virginia; but had barely
stated two instances of statues overthrown and destroyed, to illustrate
their frailty.

During the preceding debate, Mr. CLAIBORNE stated that the committee to
whom this subject had been committed, had obtained several estimates;
among which was one in writing, by Dr. Thornton, which states with
confidence that the expense of an equestrian statue would not exceed
from eight thousand to fifteen thousand pounds currency.

After some remarks from Mr. SHEPARD and Mr. LYON, the yeas and nays were
taken on engrossing the bill, and were--yeas 44, nays 40, as follows:

      YEAS.--George Baer, Bailey Bartlett, John Brown,
      Christopher G. Champlin, William Cooper, William Craik,
      Franklin Davenport, John Dennis, George Dent, Joseph
      Dickson, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster,
      Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Samuel Goode, Chauncey
      Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William Barry
      Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Archibald Henderson, William
      H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes
      Kittera, Henry Lee, Lewis R. Morris, Abraham Nott, Harrison
      G. Otis, Thomas Pinckney, Jonas Platt, Leven Powell, John
      Read, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, jr., John C. Smith,
      Samuel Tenney, George Thatcher, John Chew Thomas, Richard
      Thomas, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, John Bird, Phanuel
      Bishop, Robert Brown, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay,
      William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Condit, John
      Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Eggleston,
      Lucas Elmendorph, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna,
      Joseph Heister, David Holmes, George Jackson, Aaron
      Kitchell, Michael Leib, Matthew Lyon, James Linn,
      Nathaniel Macon, Peter Muhlenberg, John Randolph, William
      Shepard, John Smilie, John Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight,
      Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Taliaferro, John
      Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Lyttleton W. Tazewell,
      Philip Van Cortlandt, and Joseph B. Varnum.

The third reading of the bill was fixed for Thursday week; when the
House adjourned to Tuesday, the thirtieth.


TUESDAY, December 30.

_The Henderson claim to land guarantied by treaty to Chickasaw and
Cherokee Indians._

Another member, to wit, ROBERT WILLIAMS, from North Carolina, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.

A memorial of Pleasant Henderson and others, inhabitants of the State of
North Carolina, was presented to the House and read, stating their
claims to certain lands ceded by the State of North Carolina to the
United States, with a reservation of the claims of the petitioners; the
possession of which lands the United States have since guarantied by
treaty to the Chickasaw and Cherokee Indians; and praying relief in the
premises.

_Ordered_, That the said memorial do lie on the table.


WEDNESDAY, December 31.

_The Territory of Columbia._

On motion of Mr. H. LEE, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill in relation to the Territory of Columbia.

Mr. RANDOLPH moved to strike out the first section, which is in these
words:

      _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
      of the United States of America in Congress assembled_,
      That the laws of the State of Virginia, as they existed on
      the first Monday of December, in the year 1800, shall be
      and continue in force in that part of the District of
      Columbia which was ceded by the said State to the United
      States, and by them accepted for the permanent seat of
      Government; and that the laws of the State of Maryland as
      they existed on the said first Monday in December, shall be
      and continue in force in that part of the said District
      which was ceded by that State to the United States, and by
      them accepted, as aforesaid.

Mr. H. LEE said, that he was far from considering this bill as an act of
supererogation. The constitution had prohibited the States of Virginia
and Maryland from legislating for the Territory; and it now became a
question, whether the existing laws of those States were in force, which
question might come before the Judiciary. To obviate all doubts, this
bill, in the shape of a declaratory one, was reported.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, this bill is not, in my opinion, merely an act of
supererogation, but an act of immense mischief. I do not agree with my
colleague in the construction he gives the constitution. He is of
opinion, that the powers given to Congress on this subject must be
exercised by them. I think differently. These powers are like many
others conferred, which may or may not be exercised. It had never been
contended that we are obliged to carry into execution all the powers
with which we are invested. It is true, that we have nearly exhausted
the letter of our charter, in the extent to which we have gone; but this
fact furnished no reason for going still further.

A construction contrary to that contended for had been given by Congress
in the exercise of their power. The act of acceptance passed by
Congress, confirming the cessions made by Virginia and Maryland,
expressly declares, "that the operation of the laws of the State within
such District shall not be affected by this acceptance until the term
fixed for the removal of the Government thereto, and until Congress
shall otherwise by law provide."

Great force was attached to that part of the constitution which gave
Congress exclusive legislation over the Territory. But the same clause
of the constitution gave the same power over forts, magazines, arsenals,
&c. Yet this power had never been assumed by Congress. The possession of
the right had heretofore been considered as sufficient; the exercise of
it was reserved until peculiar circumstances should occur, which
rendered it necessary.

I believe the committee are not prepared to sanction this bill. To
sanction it would be to place the inhabitants of the Territory in a
situation for which they would not be thankful. It would impose upon
them all the laws of Virginia and Maryland, as they existed on the first
Monday of December, without those improvements which experience may
suggest.

If this bill passed, it would leave a considerable portion of the
inhabitants of the Territory without any judicial authorities to which
they could appeal. There were parts of Fairfax, Montgomery, and Prince
George's Counties, which would have no courts to which they could apply.

Another consequence that would result from the construction attempted to
be given to the constitution, was the deprivation of the inhabitants of
all participation either in Federal or State legislation. As, by the
construction, they would cease to be the subjects of State taxation, it
could not be expected that the States would permit them, without being
taxed, to be represented.

Could any man desire to place the citizens of the District in such a
state? To deprive them of the common right of participating in the
passage of laws which all the citizens enjoyed?

If the construction be sound, that we are bound to legislate, then all
the judicial proceedings which had taken place since the first Monday in
December, whatever affected either property or persons, were mere
nullities. I do not, however, believe the construction to be sound. I
believe it opposed both to the spirit of the constitution and to the
construction hitherto given by Congress. But were the construction just,
to adopt the proposed bill would be to act in a way inadequate to the
importance of the subject, which, involving in it a system of government
for a large portion of citizens, ought not to be acted upon with
precipitation, but ought to be conducted by the collected wisdom of
Congress derived from mature and deliberate reflection.

Mr. H. LEE said, my colleague is wrong in supposing this bill a part of
a permanent system. It is only intended to cure an evil which some
persons have supposed to exist, from the doubtful jurisdiction of the
States of Virginia and Maryland.

Mr. OTIS said, though I respect the talents of the committee who brought
in the bill, yet I cannot discover that it contains a single new view or
provision. Though I am myself at a loss to account for the necessity of
the bill, the committee were certainly right, if they entertained
doubts, to attract the attention of the House to them.

By the first act of Congress accepting the cession, the United States
have legislated in the very way the gentleman from Virginia now
proposes. As it appeared at that time impossible to form a code of laws,
those of Maryland and Virginia were confirmed till Congress should
legislate.

If it were true that Congress were bound to legislate themselves, an
equal obligation existed at that time with that which existed at
present. Their not having done so was a strong argument against the
construction now contended for.

To pass such a law as that now offered, instead of removing, would be
the very means of exciting doubt. The time may arrive when Congress must
go into the subject in detail, and make those provisions that were
necessary for a great city. But at present such a step was not called
for: the Territory had gone on very well for ten years without the
interposition of Congress, and I have no doubt it will continue for some
time to come to do well without it.

Mr. BIRD said, this question, in my opinion, is susceptible of a very
clear and precise solution. Did the acts of cession by the States, and
of acceptance by Congress, take away the jurisdiction of those States,
and vest it in Congress? The acts of Maryland and Virginia make a
complete cession of soil and jurisdiction to Congress. This cession has
been accepted by Congress. What is the consequence of one sovereign
transferring all jurisdiction to another sovereign? Does not the power
that cedes give up all right whatever to that which accepts? The words
of the constitution are that Congress shall exercise exclusive
legislation. If Congress exercise exclusive legislation, does it not
follow that no other body can exercise any legislation whatever?

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) does not deny the power
altogether, but limits it, as a power that may or may not be exercised
by Congress; and, in illustration of his opinion, instances the power to
naturalize and to pass bankrupt laws. But the cases are not analogous.
These last are powers that Congress may or may not exercise. The
constitution does not apply to them the term exclusive; nor are they
shut out by the actual words of that instrument or by necessary
inference.

Over some objects Congress have partial authority; but in this case
their authority is absolute and exclusive of all other; from which
irresistibly follows the absolute cessation of all power in the ceding
body.

It was undoubtedly the intention of the framers of the constitution,
that after this Territory became the actual seat of Government, no
authority but that of Congress should be in force.

The act of cession by the States, after stating the terms of cession,
contains a proviso, that the power of legislation thereby vested in
Congress, shall not impair the force of the laws of Maryland and
Virginia, till Congress shall otherwise by law provide. A proviso is to
prevent something from being done that without it would be done.
Congress declared the same thing when they accepted the cession with the
same proviso. This proviso tends to supersede the cession. Having this
effect it must fall, as conflicting with the act to which it is a
proviso. It must be considered as absolutely void. A proviso is intended
to prevent the operation of a particular thing, not to give an operation
to it. It may prevent the enaction of a particular law, but it cannot
re-enact that law.

A difference of opinion seemed to exist as to the period when the powers
of the States were superseded. It was the opinion of some gentlemen that
they ceased on the completion of the act of cession. The committee
consider them as ceasing on the first Monday in December of the present
year. It became the House solemnly to settle this point before they
entered into the consideration of a complicated system of government. If
the Legislative powers of the States had ceased, it follows, as a
necessary consequence, that the Judicial powers had also ceased.

For these reasons I think it will be best to declare that things shall
remain in _statu quo_. If the ordinary jurisdiction established be not
competent, it may easily be made so.

Mr. RANDOLPH was not prepared to enter into a discussion of the
important point before the committee. He would only state the dilemma in
which the inhabitants of the District of Columbia would be placed by the
construction given to the constitution by his colleague, who was of
opinion that all Legislative and Judicial powers derived from Virginia
and Maryland, ceased on the first Monday of December. If this
construction were true, was it not equally true that the bill now
proposed would be of the same validity, and of no more validity, than
the act of acceptance passed by Congress.

From his being unprepared, what he offered was submitted more in the
form of hints than of correct arguments. But it seemed to him that if
the construction contended for should prevail, it would disfranchise the
corporations of Georgetown and Alexandria, and all other corporations
within the District. Would it not place the Territory in the situation
of a conquered country? According to this construction, the Territory
was in a state of anarchy, and murder, if committed, would be no crime.

Further, if the constitutional provision is obligatory upon us to assume
exclusive legislation, are we not bound to establish uniform laws
throughout the entire District? and of course are we not prohibited from
establishing one system in one place, and a different system in another?

One other objection merited the gentleman's notice. The laws of Virginia
precluded every officer under its Government from holding any Federal
office.

From the impression made on his mind by these considerations, Mr. R.
said, he would be wanting to himself and his country, if he agreed to
the bill. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would rise, and not
precipitate a decision.

Mr. HARPER was in favor of the motion that the committee should rise,
for the purpose of recommitting the bill to a select committee. He would
state his reasons: The object of the first section was to assume the
jurisdiction. That was his object. He wished the establishment of a
Judiciary competent to the carrying into effect the laws now existing.
He wished this object to be accomplished in a fair, open, direct way. At
some future period Congress might find it necessary to enter on a system
of legislation in detail, and to have established numerous police
regulations. At this time, the present exigency would be provided for by
confirming the laws of Virginia and Maryland, and by giving effect to
them by the institution of a competent Judicial authority.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that he should vote for the committee rising, from a
different motive from that which actuated the gentleman from South
Carolina. He hoped the business would be suffered for the present to
sleep.

The construction given to the constitution by the gentleman from New
York, did not render it merely expedient in Congress to assume
jurisdiction, but rendered it an absolute duty. In reply to his remarks,
the gentleman had alleged that the authority given by the constitution
in relation to this Territory, differed from the other powers vested in
Congress, inasmuch as the former investment of power had connected it
with the word _exclusive_; whereas the latter had not. The meaning which
Mr. N. affixed to that word, was altogether different from the one now
contended for. The constitution does not say Congress shall possess
exclusive power of legislation; but that they shall have power of
exercising exclusive legislation.

The acts of cession and acceptance contained a construction directly
opposed to that now made. They declare that the laws of Maryland and
Virginia shall continue till Congress shall alter them. Their cessation
is made to depend on an uncertain event, viz: whether Congress shall
legislate or not. Not a tittle in the constitution or in our practice,
under the constitution, infringed our liberty to act or not to act.

What would be the effect of this law on the inhabitants of the
Territory? It would impose on them the laws of Maryland and Virginia, as
they existed on a particular day, without any capability of improvement
from the improved code of those States.

Mr. N. had heard of no inconveniences which had arisen from the
non-assumption of power by Congress. The people in the Territory of
Columbia had been a happy people for more than a hundred years under
their State Governments; and, he had no doubt, would remain so without
the interposition of Congress, who, at present, were unqualified to act.

After some further remarks by Messrs. HARPER and H. LEE, the question
was taken on the committee rising, and carried without a division.

The committee rose; the Chairman requested leave to sit again, which was
not granted.

Mr. HARPER then moved to recommit the bill to the same committee that
introduced it. He said, the objection made by the gentleman from
Virginia to the assumption of power by Congress goes to say that the
constitutional provision, the acts of cession of Maryland and Virginia,
and the act of acceptance by Congress, shall be all a dead letter; and
that the Territory shall continue, as heretofore, under its old
jurisdiction. This was, to all intents and purposes, the amount of the
gentleman's remarks. He asked, what necessity for the exercise of power
by Congress? Had not the citizens lived happily for a hundred years
under the State Governments? This Mr. H. did not dispute. It was
probably true that they had lived as happily as other portions of
citizens under the State Governments. But the provision of the
constitution on this subject had not been made with this view. It was
made to bestow dignity and independence on the government of the Union.
It was to protect it from such outrages as had occurred when it was
differently situated, when it was without competent Legislative,
Executive, and Judicial power, to ensure to itself respect. While the
government was under the guardianship of State laws, those laws might be
inadequate to its protection, or there might exist a spirit hostile to
the general government, or at any rate indisposed to give it proper
protection. This was one reason, among others, for the provisions of the
constitution, confirmed and carried into effect by the acts of Maryland
and Virginia, and by the act of Congress.

The object of the gentleman was to defeat all these acts and all these
arrangements, in subversion of that provision which the constitution had
made, and of that necessity which it had foreseen.

The gentleman from Virginia requires more time. He thinks we are not
prepared to legislate. But if his (Mr. H.'s) ideas were adopted, there
would be no occasion for this. The Territory has laws; and Mr. H.
believed these laws would answer very well for fifty years, without
giving Congress much trouble to modify them.

The establishment of a Judiciary would be very easy, and would require
little time. As to a police, it may be necessary hereafter. At present
it was not necessary. With regard to a corporation, he was against it at
present, and he did not think it would ever be necessary.

Mr. NICHOLAS did not consider the power imparted by the constitution as
imperative. He, therefore, could not fairly be charged with a desire to
deviate from the designs of its framers. The power was like a coat of
armor, intended to protect the Government in periods of danger, and not
to be worn at all times for parade and show.

Remarks had been made to show that the dignity and independence of the
Government required the assumption. All such arguments, when set against
the happiness of the people, were inconclusive; Mr. N. had always been
taught to consider the true dignity of the Government as indissolubly
connected with the happiness of the people; and was unable to unlearn
all that he had heretofore acquired to this effect.

Mr. CRAIK agreed with the member from South Carolina, as far as his
remarks went, but he did not think they went far enough. He was himself
friendly to the institution of a local government for local purposes,
leaving all Federal powers to Congress. If the bill should be
recommitted, he would be prepared to offer a plan conformably to these
ideas. He felt no alarm at the doubts suggested of the validity of the
laws of Maryland and Virginia. He believed that they were still in
force; and did not think there was any absolute necessity for Congress
to act at all at present. Still, he thought that delay would only
multiply the inconveniences already experienced in the formation of a
plan of government. A plan might be framed, to protect the General
Government as well as, in some degree, the inhabitants of the Territory,
from any tyranny that some gentlemen supposed might be exercised by
Congress.

He concluded, by expressing a hope that a completely organized system
might be formed and adopted.


THURSDAY, January 1, 1801.

The House of Representatives having received information of the death of
Major General THOMAS HARTLEY, one of its members, who has represented
the State of Pennsylvania, in that branch of the National Legislature,
from the commencement of the Government until his death, do, therefore,
unanimously, _Resolve_, That the members testify their respect for the
memory of the said THOMAS HARTLEY, by wearing a crape on the left arm,
for one month.

_Resolved_, That the SPEAKER address a letter to the Executive of
Pennsylvania, to inform him of the death of THOMAS HARTLEY, late a
member of this House, in order that measures may be taken to supply the
vacancy occasioned thereby.

_Mausoleum to Washington._

An engrossed bill concerning GEORGE WASHINGTON was read the third time;
and, on the question that the same do pass,

Mr. DAWSON moved to recommit it. Lost--ayes 39, noes 44.

Mr. RANDOLPH moved to refer the bill to a select committee. Lost--ayes
32.

Mr. SPAIGHT and Mr. DAVIS then assigned their reasons for voting against
the bill.

The question was then taken on the passing of the bill, and it was
resolved in the affirmative--yeas 45, nays 37, as follows:

      YEAS.--Bailey Bartlett, John Brown, Christopher G.
      Champlin, William Cooper, William Craik, John Davenport,
      Franklin Davenport, John Dennis, George Dent, Joseph
      Dickson, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Jonathan Freeman,
      Henry Glenn, Samuel Goode, Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur
      Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert
      Goodloe Harper, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill,
      Benjamin Huger, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry
      Lee, Silas Lee, Lewis R. Morris, Abraham Nott, Harrison G.
      Otis, Thomas Pinckney, Jonas Platt, Leven Powell, John
      Read, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, jr., John C. Smith, James
      Sheafe, Samuel Tenney, George Thatcher, John Chew Thomas,
      Richard Thomas, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry
      Woods.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop,
      Robert Brown, Gabriel Christie, Matthew Clay, William C. C.
      Claiborne, John Condit, Thos. T. Davis, John Dawson, Joseph
      Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John
      A. Hanna, David Holmes, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell,
      Michael Leib, James Linn, Nathaniel Macon, Peter
      Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas, John Randolph, John
      Smilie, John Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Richard
      Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Benjamin Taliaferro, John
      Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Joseph B. Varnum, and Robert Williams.

_Resolved_, That the title of the said bill be "An act to erect a
Mausoleum for GEORGE WASHINGTON;" and that the Clerk of this House do
carry the same to the Senate, and desire their concurrence.


FRIDAY, January 2.

Another member, to wit, JAMES A. BAYARD, from Delaware, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.

On motion of Mr. GRISWOLD the House went into a Committee of the Whole
on the Judiciary bill; the House dividing--yeas 44, nays 33.

The bill was read through, when the committee reported progress, and
asked and obtained leave to sit again.

_Sedition Law._

The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of Revisal
and Unfinished Business, made the thirty-first ultimo, which lay on the
table, and the same being again read, in the words following, to wit:

      "The Committee of Revisal and Unfinished Business further
      report, in part:

      "That, on examining the statutes of the United States, they
      find that the act, entitled 'An act in addition to the act,
      entitled "An act for the punishment of certain crimes
      against the United States,"' passed the fourteenth day of
      July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, will
      expire on the third day of March, one thousand eight
      hundred and one.

      "And the said committee report their opinion, that the
      above-mentioned act ought to be continued; and, therefore,
      recommend the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That the Committee of Revisal and Unfinished
      Business be authorized to report a bill for continuing the
      act, entitled 'An act in addition to the act, entitled "An
      act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United
      States,"' passed the fourteenth day of July, one thousand
      seven hundred and ninety-eight."

It was moved and seconded that the said report be committed to a
Committee of the whole House. And the question being taken thereupon, it
was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 47, nays 33.

_Ordered_, That the said report be committed to a Committee of the whole
House on Tuesday next.


MONDAY, January 26.

Several other members, to wit: from Kentucky, JOHN FOWLER; from
Virginia, SAMUEL J. CABELL; and from New York, EDWARD LIVINGSTON,
appeared, and took their seats in the House.


THURSDAY, January 29.

_Rules for Electing President when no Election by Electors._

The following resolution, proposed by Mr. RUTLEDGE, was presented to the
House, which, being read, was ordered to lie on the table.

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and
      report such rules as, in their opinion, are proper to be
      adopted by this House, to be observed in the election of a
      President of the United States, whose term is to commence
      on the fourth day of March next, provided the Electors
      appointed under the authority of the States have not
      elected a President for that term."


FRIDAY, January 30.

_Election of President when the two highest on the List voted for have
an equal number of Votes._

Mr. BAYARD submitted the following resolution, to wit:

      _Resolved_, That, in the event of its appearing upon the
      counting and ascertaining of the votes given for President
      and Vice President, according to the mode prescribed by the
      constitution, that an equal number of votes have been
      given for two persons, that as soon as the same shall have
      been duly declared and entered on the journals of this
      House, that the Speaker, accompanied by the members of the
      House, shall return to this Chamber, and shall immediately
      proceed to choose one of the two candidates for President;
      and in case, upon the first ballot, there shall not appear
      to be a majority of the States in favor of one of the
      candidates, in such case the House shall continue to ballot
      for President, without interruption by other business,
      until it shall appear that a President is duly chosen; and,
      if no such choice should be made upon the first day, the
      House shall continue to ballot from day to day, till a
      choice shall be duly made.

_Ordered_, That the consideration of the said motion be postponed until
Monday next.


MONDAY, February 2.

A new member, to wit, EBENEZER MATTOON, returned to serve as a member of
this House for the State of Massachusetts, in the room of Samuel Lyman,
who has resigned his seat, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Election of President._

A motion being made and seconded that the House do come to the following
resolution, to wit:

      _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and
      report such rules, as, in their opinion, are proper to be
      adopted by this House, to be observed in the choice of a
      President of the United States, whose term is to commence
      on the fourth day of March next, if, when the votes which
      have been given by the electors appointed under the
      authority of the States shall have been counted, as
      prescribed by the constitution, it shall appear that no
      person for whom the electors shall have voted, has a
      majority, or that more than one person, having such
      majority, have an equal number of votes:

_Ordered_, That Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. NICHOLAS, Mr. GRISWOLD, Mr. MACON, Mr.
BAYARD, Mr. TALIAFERRO, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. CLAIBORNE, Mr. OTIS, Mr. DAVIS,
Mr. MORRIS, Mr. CHAMPLIN, Mr. BAER, Mr. COOPER, Mr. LINN, and Mr. WOODS,
be appointed a committee, pursuant to the said resolution.

_Ordered_, That the motion made on Friday last relative to the mode of
commencing and continuing the ballot for the choice of a President of
the United States, be referred to the committee last appointed.

_District of Columbia._

The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for the
government of the District of Columbia. While the question was being
taken for the House to resolve itself into a committee, Mr. SMILIE rose
and moved the postponement of this order till the third day of March
next. He made this motion, he said, in order to try the sense of the
House, whether they were determined to assume the jurisdiction or not.
He hoped it would not, and was proceeding to show his reasons, when

The SPEAKER reminded him of the order of the House. He could not be
permitted to discuss the merits of the bill under this motion.

Mr. SMILIE conceived the question to affect the bill generally, and
simply to be, whether the House would agree to disfranchise some
thousands of persons of their political rights, which they now enjoyed.
If this was not considered an object of importance enough to command
attention, he must confess other gentlemen saw it in a very different
light from that in which he viewed it. By the passage of this bill, the
people of the district would be reduced to the state of subjects, and
deprived of their political rights, and he very much doubted whether not
of their civil rights also. If, indeed, there was such an imperious
necessity of assuming the jurisdiction, of which he was by no means
convinced, then it must be done; but, if that great and immediate
necessity did not exist, why should this privation of rights take place?
If it was necessary to reduce the City of Washington to a state of local
government by an incorporation, he contended that act could be done by
the State Legislature; as he did not conceive the local demands of the
people called for it, as they could want no such assumption as the bill
contemplated, and as he could perceive no advantage to be derived to the
General Government thereby, and as the assumption would eventually
injure the people, he trusted it would be postponed, at least.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, he had always uniformly opposed any motion for
postponing a bill, the consideration of which the House had not gone
into. Although it might be in order, it could not be perfectly fair,
from various considerations; if, however, it were only from its tendency
to preclude the investigation of the bill, it were sufficient. The
gentleman had stated it not to be necessary. Who are to judge? Most
assuredly the people belonging to the Territory. And what have they
said? Why, sir, they have prayed the House to assume the jurisdiction.
From this petition the subject was referred to a committee, and this
committee have reported a bill, and a bill well discussed and well
matured in its detail. To refuse this bill from a diversity of
sentiment, would be to insult the committee, and to insult the people of
the Territory. If the gentleman wishes to please the people, why does he
not suffer the consideration of the bill to proceed, and afford his aid
in making it what he supposes their desires would concur in? Perhaps the
gentleman has not read the bill. Mr. R. said, if he had not, how was he
to know whether it was good or bad? Something must be done. He wished to
get at that something, but was precluded by the motion. It certainly
became the gentleman to show how this bill would operate injuriously
upon the people, as a reason for his motion. Disfranchisement, to be
sure, had been mentioned as the result of this bill; but how was the
House to know that would be its tendency, except by going into its
investigation?

Mr. CRAIK, also, considered this order of the House as the most unfair
one among the rules of the House. However, it must be permitted while
the order continued. The gentleman had said the people were in a state
of vassalage; how was this declaration to be refuted, if the order of
the House forbade the investigation into the application of this bill to
the liberties of the people? The gentleman further said, that the people
did not desire this assumption of jurisdiction. Were he, Mr. C. said, to
give an opinion upon the subject, it would be drawn from the same source
with that expressed by the gentleman, but of a very different import. He
should say, as far as his knowledge of their sentiments extended, and he
professed to be pretty well acquainted with their ideas upon this
subject, that their feelings, their interests, and their desires
conspired to encourage the assumption, and to prevent the postponement
of the subject. As the immediate representative of a large proportion of
them, he could say that much uncertainty and disquiet convulsed the
minds of many good and wise men among them; that their present
uncertainty was truly deplorable; that serious doubts existed with
judicious men how far the grants and acceptance of lands, or of their
papers, afforded them security for value received; doubts existed, in
all their acts of negotiation, whether their respective State laws held
any government over them? And this state of insecurity as to their
property, could not fail to have an injurious effect. They doubted
whether all other jurisdiction did not immediately cease, upon the
removal of Congress to the District; and should Congress break up
without assuming the jurisdiction, and taking other suitable measures to
fix the Government, it would not fail to paralyze every exertion and
effort toward a successful establishment. No man at present can assure
himself of the right by which he holds his property, or remove his
apprehensions. They now called loudly upon the National Government to
remove from them this state of doubt and uncertainty; this is the object
of the bill before the House; by this bill, a variety of inconveniences
are removed, and the Government use their effort to make their situation
at least more certain; and, he had no doubt, more safe and desirable.
This it was incumbent on the Government to do; and this, he trusted, a
majority of the House would be disposed to do soon. If the objects or
provisions of the bill did not meet that gentleman's desires, he wished
an opportunity to hear the objections, to enable him, as far as in his
power, to remove them.

Mr. SMILIE was proceeding to show that, at any rate, such a bill as the
present ought not to pass, when

The SPEAKER interrupted him, saying that any arguments that went to show
that the third day of March was a more proper time than the present for
this bill to pass would only be in order.

Mr. SMILIE continued to show the impropriety of the bill, and the
inevitable injuries that must be sustained by it, when he was again
reminded of the question of order.

Mr. S. proceeded: that it might be the wish of some of the people, he
would not say; but he denied that such a wish had been expressed, and
therefore it ought not to be considered as correct. As to the question
of doubt on the minds of the people, whether or not they held their
property secure, not being certain of the existence of their former
State laws, he referred to the acts of cession, passed by the States of
Maryland and Virginia respectively, the words of which were, that the
laws remained in force "until Congress shall by law otherwise provide."
Under this express provision, the cession was made by the two States;
and by this provision the Government of the United States accepted the
grant of the ten miles square. And, therefore, until Congress by law
should accept of the jurisdiction and nullify the laws of those States
over the District, there could be no doubt but they remained in full
force, and property was held as secure under those laws as ever. As he
had before observed, he contended that an act of incorporation could be
obtained for the city of Washington without this bill. From all these
grounds, he believed the bill to be at present unnecessary.

Mr. H. LEE did not wonder at this opposition, considering the quarter
from whence it came; perhaps, he said, if he had come from Pennsylvania,
the idea of losing the General Government might instigate him to wish to
give the stabbing blow to every act which should go to the establishing
of that Government in another place. But, he trusted, as these local
reasons could not influence gentlemen from other States, they would not
concur in his arguments. He trusted other gentlemen would lay to their
hands and join to make this District a settled Government, and go into
the examination of the principles proposed to accomplish that measure.
He hoped not merely words of kindness escaping from the lips of
gentlemen, would be deemed by them sufficient, but that their efforts
would be used to produce a well-digested and valuable government, for
the security of their civil and political rights.

With respect to the act of cession, he contended that the solemn
injunctions of the constitution were detailed in words upon which the
most critical could not find wherewith to hang a doubt. There the
Congress of the United States were enjoined to "exercise exclusive
jurisdiction." When was this jurisdiction to commence but at the period
when the General Government should occupy it? Was not, then, this spot
become the permanent seat of the Government of the Union? Were not the
different departments, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, assembled,
according to the constitution, in this District? How, then, could the
respective States of Virginia and Maryland a moment longer possess the
jurisdiction? It was completely done away, and nothing was now wanting
to remove the miserable state of suspense the people now felt, but the
declaration of the Government that this was the case; that moment would
all their fears be appeased. As a friend to those people, then, as much
as that gentleman could be, he hoped an opportunity would be given to
examine the bill, not doubting but it would be made to meet the wishes,
as he was assured it would be the interest of the people to be governed
by it.

Mr. MACON said the motion was perfectly in order, and explained some of
the cases for which it was established, as a rule of the House. As to
the jurisdiction being assumed by the removal of Congress here, as the
gentleman last up had said, were that the case, not only by this bill
would it be assumed, but the acts of the two States must have ceased
from the day Congress first sat here; a deduction by no means supported.
The only evidence the House had of the desire of the people to come
specially under the National Government, was a petition from Alexandria,
except that the gentleman from the District had learned so among his
friends. But did that express the will or wishes of the inhabitants of
the surrounding country.

As he believed the laws of the States to be in full force; as he
believed they would remain so until otherwise enacted by Congress, and
as postponing the bill till the third of March would afford the people a
large time to reflect on the subject, and express their will more
generally, he hoped the postponement would take place. He would remind
the House that this measure once taken, could not be undone; and,
therefore, prudence would dictate that time should be taken to do it
well. The act could not be repealed without amending the constitution.
If the gentleman only calculated upon an opposition from Pennsylvania,
he was mistaken. Mr. M. presumed that he could not be supposed to have
local attachments, residing very far from the former, or the present
seat of Government; he was, notwithstanding, opposed to taking up this
subject at present, and even during the present session. The delay of
acceptance could not displease the inhabitants, if they were satisfied
as to the present jurisdiction, which did not, in his opinion, admit of
a doubt. It was impossible that the postponement could be attended with
any inconvenience; they had been in the same situation for ten years,
and wherein could be the inconvenience of their remaining so? Nay, there
must be advantages in their usages and customs being continued to them.
He wished this matter to be postponed till another session.

Mr. BIRD never could suppose that the members of the Legislature would
be satisfied with their removal from a place of accommodation to a
wilderness, and with subjecting themselves to the inconveniences of this
place, without exercising all the powers intrusted to them, and taking
the jurisdiction to the Government, the members and subordinates of
which were to subject themselves to the code of laws under which they
should place themselves. A motion, therefore, to continue the
jurisdiction out of the hands of the Government, much surprised him. All
the arguments used by the gentleman in favor of a postponement, would
operate fully to the entire abandonment of the subject; and did he
suppose that all the expense attending the removal of the whole
Government, all the inconvenience experienced, would be, or ought to be,
borne without the enjoyment of that constitutional right, nay,
injunction, of "exclusive legislation?" What could have been the reason
why Congress was to assume this exclusive legislation? Did not the
members of the convention know that a great quantity of public treasure
would be drawn together into this place? Did they not suppose it of
importance to secure the privileges and rights of foreign ministers, who
would necessarily be brought to reside in this District? Did they not
consider the number of persons attached to the Government worthy of the
special regard of the national Legislature? Could any gentleman conceive
that these were not too great powers to be intrusted to any State
whatever? Else why was the provision for exclusive jurisdiction made? To
avoid putting those powers into execution, he firmly believed, would be
omitting a great and important duty. But, were it not for the words of
the constitution, the words of the acts of cession made by the States
were as ample upon the subject as one sovereign power in the act of
granting, and another sovereign power in the act of receiving a cession,
could make. This was precisely the case; the two States made a full and
complete cession of the jurisdiction to the General Government, upon the
terms of the constitution, which were to "exercise exclusive
legislation, in all cases whatever, over such District," which had, by
the cession of those particular States, and the acceptance of Congress,
become the seat of the Government of the United States. How, he would
ask gentlemen, could this be granted, and yet retained? It was absurd to
suppose a man could grant a piece of land, and by the same instrument
retain it.

But suppose this was a doubtful subject, whether or not the laws of the
two States were in force in the District; would the gentleman still wish
to leave it in doubt? Surely no new laws could be made by those States
to affect this district, actually made the seat of Government, and he
contended that none of the laws whatever did exist here, and that the
power of the civil officers actually had ceased; it therefore required
no painting to show that the state of the place was truly deplorable.
Would the gentleman yet wish to leave the District without laws, and
merely lest it should take away their suffrage? That the people could
not be represented in the General Government, Mr. B. admitted. But where
was the blame, if any could attach? Certainly not to the men who made
the act of cession; not to those who accepted it. It was to the men who
framed the constitutional provision, who peculiarly set apart this as a
District under the national safeguard and Government. But, he contended,
there was no injury sustained. What less compensation than the
particular legislation of this District could be required for the
removal of the Government, whereby in these almost uninhabited woods the
beginnings of a rich and prosperous city was commenced, and made the
capital of the United States?

The motion for postponement was withdrawn without a question being
taken, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill. Mr. SMILIE moved to strike out the first section of the bill.

Mr. SMILIE said he would willingly give the reasons which prompted him
to make the motion, and he hoped the gentleman would as freely make his
reply. If it could be proved to him that the rights of these people
could be reserved by the passage of the bill, it would give him
pleasure, but, believing it to be impossible, he wished to destroy the
bill. It could not be denied but that the people of this District were
precisely in the same situation at present which they always had been,
and subject to the same laws, but would it be so when the Government
once accepted the cession? It would not. Not a man in the District would
be represented in the Government, whereas every man who contributed to
the support of a government ought to be represented in it, otherwise his
natural rights were subverted, and he left, not a citizen, but a
subject. This was one right the bill deprived these people of, and he
had always been taught to believe it was a very serious and important
one. It was a right which this country, when under subjection to Great
Britain, thought worth making a resolute struggle for, and evinced a
determination to perish rather than not enjoy.

Another, and an important right, of which those people were about to be
deprived, was, that their Judges and their Governor were not to be the
choice of themselves, but of the President. The privilege of a local
Legislature might be given to the people, but of what avail could they
be if the Governor appointed by the President could deprive them of
every act they might make by his negative? Where was their security if
the acts of these Representatives of the people could be to-morrow
revoked by a power deriving authority from elsewhere? Much as gentlemen
might talk about dignity of government, nothing, he thought, would more
comport with true dignity than liberty, and without it dignity of
government was not worth a name. It surely must be disagreeable for the
Government to be in the midst of a people who are deprived of their
rights, and what insecurity there ever had been, or ever would be, to
the Government, from its residence under the laws of the States, he
could not conceive. He had never known of any. If he could be convinced
that the people would not be deprived of these rights, among others, he
would agree to some such bill as this.

Mr. DENNIS acknowledged that had he the same impressions as the member
who had just sat down, he would not hesitate for a moment to believe
that liberty had been forced to yield to a reign of absolute slavery.
But from a consideration of the interests of the people, of the dignity
of the Government, and of the seat of the Congress, together with the
reflections of the gentleman who had just resumed his seat, he felt
himself called upon to make some observations by way of an answer.

As to the interests of the people, could it for a moment be doubted that
a local government, a judiciary, and a legislature, would be highly
advantageous? Could any man doubt but it would be more convenient and
advantageous for the inhabitants to attend the courts in this place than
to be taken away to Richmond or to Annapolis? It had been always an
approved privilege that justice should be brought home to every man's
door, and where could it be more so than by the establishment of a
judiciary, especially for this District? Nor were the advantages less,
he contended, in the legislative department. If a ready communication
with their representatives was desirable to the people, by the residence
and sitting of the representatives of this District being within itself,
the communication was easy, and the rights of the people in their local
concerns more attainable, surely, than though they had to go to Richmond
or to Annapolis. But, taking a more comprehensive view of the subject,
Mr. D. asked if the general interests of the District would not be more
secured by persons immediately acquainted and concerned, than by persons
of different States, and at a distance from the place? One or two
representatives to each legislature would be the utmost that the
District could send, and these placed among men of different interests,
what could be expected compared to a body such as is prescribed by this
bill, drawn from among the people themselves? In these legislatures, the
numerous local circumstances which must call for attention in a newly
planted and rapidly growing capital, never can receive due attention.
Every person must know that a great proportion of business must arise
from a commercial city. From observation he could say that about
one-third of the business of the Legislature of Maryland usually arose
from Baltimore alone. As this city, therefore, grew in population and in
trade, the demand for legislative attention would increase, and either
its interests must be neglected, or the sitting of the State
legislatures must be protracted too far. Besides this, experience must
have taught gentlemen that numerous bodies could not so well attend to
the minute advantages of a place like this as small bodies, and
particularly such as well knew its situation and circumstances.

It had been said that these people were happy. Mr. D. admitted it; but a
change of circumstances made an inevitable difference, and required a
different mode of legislating. This District of the General Government,
being a part of two States, must require an alteration from its former
government. Surely the organization of a local body must be more
advantageous than any modifications which could be made by those two
Legislatures. So far from a rule of despotism then being over these
people, he thought the passing of this bill would much increase their
prosperity. It was said that, by the assumption of the jurisdiction,
these people would ask how much they were heretofore represented in the
two Legislatures to which they sent delegates. They were so in name, but
very little in essence, from the comparatively small number they could
send to the Legislatures. But the arguments went as much against the
assumption at any future time as at present. That it would be some time
taken up there could be no doubt. It ought therefore to be recollected,
that if it would ever be proper, a period more unfavorable to the
interests of the people might be selected than the present, and
therefore the present moment ought to be accepted, and especially so, as
he believed the people were desirous of it, and were satisfied with the
features of the bill. From their contiguity to, and residence among the
members of the General Government, they knew, that though they might not
be represented in the national body, their voice would be heard. But if
it should be necessary, the constitution might be so altered as to give
them a delegate to the General Legislature when their numbers should
become sufficient. Upon the whole, he could see no measures which would
more immediately promote the interests of the people of this district,
and give stability to their minds, and to their concerns with each
other, than the present bill and, therefore, he hoped the section would
remain.

Mr. MACON said, he could see no such immediate necessity for this law. A
gentleman had told the committee it was necessary because the States did
not pay regard to it. Mr. M. supposed the same attention was paid to
this district as usual, and the same as was paid to any other particular
part. He believed their political and local rights were as perfectly
secure without this bill as any other part of those States, and if the
object of gentlemen was to make it better or worse, he should be opposed
to it. Before the least change from their former situation, some
inconveniences ought to be mentioned under which they labored, and this
had not been done, more than mere conjecture and surmises had
engendered. Most assuredly there ought to be some good ground for this
assumption, because it was not merely a common act of the Legislature,
which could be repealed or amended as soon as passed. It was an act of a
nature that could not be essentially altered without an alteration in
the constitution, because if the assumption was once accepted, it could
not be parted with.

It would be so far from advantageous to the city of Washington, Mr. M.
said, that it must essentially injure it. On one side of the water was
Alexandria, a populous town; on the other side was Georgetown. Would not
these two give to the legislature a majority? And if so, a more palpable
evil could not be put upon the city than by putting it in with more
numerous towns whose interests would ever be opposed to the growth of
the city. There would inevitably be an Alexandria interest, a Georgetown
interest, and a city interest, and those struggling with each other.

It was said to be inconvenient to be represented at a distance, from the
want of an easy communication. How could this be? What was more easy
than for letters and instructions to be sent by post? The communication
was easy from all parts of the United States to Congress, and could be
equally so to any place where the post goes. There could be no doubt but
the States would pay as much attention to the interests of this
District, if it continued under their jurisdiction, as ever had been
done, and more: by not suffering it to endure any injury which it could
prevent, Congress should immediately take the jurisdiction. The language
and meaning of gentlemen could be well understood. Gentlemen were called
to support the measure with energy, while they had strength. No doubt
this was the principal ground of their endeavors to push the measure,
although the Legislature had but just met here, and there had been
scarce time to know what would be the proper regulations to adopt. But
he wished to remind them, that although the law might be passed, the
time would not be far off when his friends would be in the minority, and
some considerable alterations might be made in it.

Mr. M. then proceeded to the details of the bill. He disliked the
establishment of a government, the executive and judiciary of which were
in the appointment of the President of the United States, the former for
three years and the latter during good behavior: and these, both
governor and judges of the superior and inferior courts, to be paid out
of the Treasury of the United States. Could it be the wish of the
gentleman, he asked, to establish in the very heart of the United
States, and immediately under the eye of the Government, such a
principle as that these rulers should be independent and entirely above
the control of the people? He declared that if he should be in Congress
again, and as long as he ever should be in the House, he should
constantly make it his duty to exert himself for the repeal of so bad a
principle, and leave the governor, the judges, and the Legislature,
immediately amenable to the people. Another thing he should also be ever
opposed to, was the manner of this House of Representatives and Senate
being chosen, and the time of their continuance. Why should they be
elected here for two years, when in all the State Legislatures, he
believed they were chosen annually, except two, in one of which they
were elected every six months, and in the other, every two years. A
greater absurdity still was evinced in the time for which, and the
manner how the Senators were chosen--six years, and by electors.
Although in these things there was a similarity to the choice of the
General Government, he would ask what similarity there could be in the
two Governments? In the one there is a vast extent of country and a
numerous population; in the other, a small population, a small tract of
country, and an almost general knowledge by every one of every
individual in it. He doubted whether the Legislature of the Union could
at all delegate powers to this local government; but whether or not, he
could see no kind of necessity during the present session to assume
them. The Government would go on as well as before, and he had no doubt
the city would continue in that rapid state of prosperity gentlemen had
witnessed since they arrived here.

The committee rose without taking a question, and had leave to sit
again.


TUESDAY, February 3.

A new member, to wit, JOHN STEWART, returned to serve as a member of
this House for the State of Pennsylvania, in the room of Thomas Hartley,
deceased, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took
his seat in the House.

_District of Columbia._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for
the government of the District of Columbia, when the question was taken
on the motion made yesterday, for striking out the first section, and
negatived, ten members only rising for it.

Mr. GREGG then proposed an amendment to the first section, the object of
which was to make the election of representatives annual, instead of
biennial as contemplated by the bill. This motion brought on a lengthy
discussion, being supported by Messrs. J. SMITH, CLAIBORNE, NICHOLAS,
GALLATIN, and MACON; and opposed by Messrs. CRAIK, HARPER, BAYARD, H.
LEE, THOMAS, and DENNIS. On the question for agreeing to the motion, it
was determined in the negative--48 voting for it and 50 against it.

A motion was then made by Mr. CLAIBORNE, so to amend the first section
as to extend the privilege of voting to persons who are not freeholders;
that privilege being confined by the bill to freeholders exclusively.
This motion brought on a short debate, in which Messrs. KITCHELL,
NICHOLSON, SMITH, MACON, TAZEWELL, and NICHOLAS supported the motion,
and Messrs. HARPER, CRAIK, DENNIS, and GALLATIN, opposed it. On the
question that the House do agree to the motion, it was determined in the
negative, there being 48 votes for, and 50 against it.


WEDNESDAY, February 4.

_District of Columbia._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for
the government of the District of Columbia.

A motion was made by Mr. GALLATIN to amend the first section of the
bill, so as to extend the privilege of voting for representatives to
persons other than freeholders, who are possessed of property in the
District to the value of eighty dollars.

Mr. HARPER proposed an amendment to the foregoing amendment, that a
citizen, not being a freeholder, in order to qualify him as an elector,
must be a housekeeper, and possessed of property of the value of one
hundred dollars, to be ascertained by the record of the last assessment
next preceding the period of offering his vote.

Mr. GALLATIN'S amendment was withdrawn, and Mr. HARPER'S, which, though
offered as an amendment, was a complete substitute for it, was adopted.

Mr. CLAIBORNE proposed as an amendment to this same section, to reduce
the term of a Senator continuing in office from six to three years.

The motion was negatived.

Mr. TAZEWELL moved to strike out the Senate altogether, on the ground
that Congress, having the revision of all laws that may be passed for
the territory, and the power of rejecting such as they did not approve,
would be a sufficient check on the Representatives without a Senate.

This motion was negatived.

Mr. MACON moved as an amendment, that the Senators should be elected
immediately by the people, and not by electors, as proposed by the bill.

This motion was also lost.

A motion was made by Mr. NICHOLSON, that the electors should not be
permitted to choose themselves as Senators.

This motion was adopted.

The committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.


FRIDAY, February 6.

A new member, to wit, LEVI LINCOLN, returned to serve in this House as a
member from Massachusetts, in the room of Dwight Foster, elected a
Senator of the United States, appeared, produced his credentials, and
took his seat in the House.

_Rules for Election of President._

Mr. RUTLEDGE, from the committee appointed, on the second instant, to
prepare and report such rules as, in their opinion, are proper to be
adopted by this House to be observed in the choice of a President of the
United States, made a report; which was read.

      [See _post_, Monday 9th, as amended.]


MONDAY, February 9.

_Ordered_, That the Committee of Claims, to whom was referred, on the
thirtieth ultimo, the memorial of sundry clerks employed in the
different departments, be discharged from the further consideration
thereof, and that the same be referred to the Committee of Revisal and
Unfinished Business.

Mr. RUTLEDGE, from the committee appointed on the part of this House,
jointly, with the committee on the part of the Senate, to ascertain and
report a mode of examining the votes given for President and Vice
President of the United States; of notifying the persons elected of
their election, and the time, place, and manner of administering the
oath of office to the President, reported that the committee had taken
the subject referred to them under consideration, but had come to no
agreement thereupon.

A message from the Senate, informed the House that the Senate would be
ready to receive the House in the Senate Chamber, on Wednesday next, at
twelve o'clock, for the purpose of being present at the opening and
counting of the votes for President of the United States; and that the
Senate have appointed a teller on their part, to make a list of the
votes for President of the United States as they shall be declared.

_Rules for Election of President._

The House proceeded to consider the report made on Friday last, from the
committee appointed to prepare and report rules proper to be observed in
the choice of a President of the United States: Whereupon,

_Ordered_, That the said report be committed to a Committee of the whole
House immediately.

The House, accordingly, resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the said report; and, after some time spent therein, the Chairman
reported that the committee had had the said report under consideration,
and directed him to report to the House their agreement to the same,
with an amendment; which he delivered in at the Clerk's table, where the
same was read. The House then proceeded to consider the report:
Whereupon, the amendment reported from the Committee of the whole House
to the said report, was, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the
House.

A motion was then made and seconded that the House do disagree with the
Committee of the whole House in their agreement to the fourth rule
contained in the said report, in the words following, to wit:

      "4th. After commencing the balloting for President, the
      House shall not adjourn until a choice is made:"

And, the question being taken thereupon, it passed in the negative--yeas
47, nays 53.

A motion was then made and seconded that the House do disagree with the
Committee of the whole House in their agreement to the fifth rule
contained in the said report, in the words following, to wit:

      "5th. The doors of the House shall be closed during the
      balloting, except against the officers of the House:"

And, the question being taken thereupon, it passed in the negative--yeas
45, nays 54.

_Resolved_, That this House doth agree with the Committee of the whole
House in their agreement to the said report, as amended, in the words
following, to wit:

      "That the following rules be observed in the choice by the
      House of Representatives of a President of the United
      States, whose term is to commence on the fourth day of
      March next.

      "1st. In the event of its appearing, upon the counting and
      ascertaining of the votes given for President and Vice
      President, according to the mode prescribed by the
      constitution, that no person has a constitutional majority,
      and the same shall have been duly declared and entered on
      the journals of this House, the Speaker, accompanied by the
      members of the House, shall return to their Chamber.

      "2d. Seats shall be provided in this House for the
      President and members of the Senate; and notification of
      the same shall be made to the Senate.

      "3d. The House, on their return from the Senate Chamber, it
      being ascertained that the constitutional number of States
      were present, shall immediately proceed to choose one of
      the persons from whom the choice is to be made for
      President; and in case upon the first ballot there shall
      not appear to be a majority of the States in favor of one
      of them, in such case the House shall continue to ballot
      for a President, without interruption by other business,
      until it shall appear that a President is duly chosen.

      "4th. After commencing the balloting for President, the
      House shall not adjourn until a choice be made.

      "5th. The doors of the House shall be closed during the
      balloting, except against the officers of the House.

      "6th. In balloting, the following mode shall be observed,
      to wit: The representatives of the respective States shall
      be so seated that the delegation of each State shall be
      together. The representatives of each State shall, in the
      first instance, ballot among themselves, in order to
      ascertain the votes of the State; and it shall be allowed,
      where deemed necessary by the delegation, to name one or
      more persons of the representation, to be tellers of the
      ballots. After the vote of each State is ascertained,
      duplicates thereof shall be made; and in case the vote of
      the State be for one person, then the name of that person
      shall be written on each of the duplicates; and in case the
      ballots of the State be equally divided, then the word
      "_divided_" shall be written on each duplicate, and the
      said duplicates shall be deposited in manner hereafter
      prescribed, in boxes to be provided. That, for the
      conveniently taking the ballots of the several
      representatives of the respective States, there be sixteen
      ballot boxes provided; and that there be, additionally, two
      boxes provided for the purpose of receiving the votes of
      the States; that after the delegation of each State shall
      have ascertained the vote of the State, the
      Sergeant-at-Arms shall carry to the respective delegations
      the two ballot boxes, and the delegation of each State, in
      the presence and subject to the examination of all the
      members of the delegation, shall deposit a duplicate of the
      vote of the State in each ballot box; and where there is
      more than one representative of a State, the duplicates
      shall not both be deposited by the same person. When the
      votes of the States are all thus taken in, the
      Sergeant-at-Arms shall carry one of the general ballot
      boxes to one table, and the other to a second and separate
      table. Sixteen members shall then be appointed as tellers
      of the ballots; one of whom shall be taken from each State,
      and be nominated by the delegation of the State from which
      he was taken. The said tellers shall be divided into two
      equal sets, according to such agreement as shall be made
      among themselves; and one of the said sets of tellers
      shall proceed to count the votes in one of the said boxes,
      and the other set the votes in the other box; and in the
      event of no appointment of teller by any delegation, the
      Speaker shall in such case appoint. When the votes of the
      States are counted by the respective sets of tellers, the
      result shall be reported to the House; and if the reports
      agree, the same shall be accepted as the true votes of the
      States; but if the reports disagree, the States shall
      immediately proceed to a new ballot, in manner aforesaid.

      "7th. If either of the persons voted for, shall have a
      majority of the votes of all the States, the Speaker shall
      declare the same; and official notice thereof shall be
      immediately given to the President of the United States,
      and to the Senate.

      "8th. All questions which shall arise after the balloting
      commences, and which shall be decided by the House voting
      _per capita_ to be incidental to the power of choosing the
      President, and which shall require the decision of the
      House, shall be decided by States, and without debate; and
      in case of an equal division of the votes of States, the
      question shall be lost."


TUESDAY, February 10.

_Credentials of Members._

Mr. DENT, from the standing Committee of Elections, made a report, which
he delivered in at the Clerk's table, where the same was read, and is as
follows:

      "The Committee of Elections having examined the credentials
      of several members claiming seats in this House, report:

      "That, by two certificates of the Governor of
      Massachusetts, under seal of the State, and dated the ninth
      day of January, one thousand eight hundred and one, it
      appears by one of the said certificates that Ebenezer
      Mattoon is duly elected to serve as a member of the House
      of Representatives of the United States, in the room of
      Samuel Lyman, stated therein to have resigned; and by the
      other certificate, that Levi Lincoln is duly elected as
      aforesaid, in the place of Dwight Foster, appointed a
      Senator of the United States.

      "It appears, also, by a letter under the signature of the
      Governor of Pennsylvania, dated the twenty-first day of
      January, one thousand eight hundred and one, and addressed
      to the Speaker, accompanied by authenticated documents,
      that John Stewart is duly chosen, in the place of Thomas
      Hartley, deceased.

      "The committee are of opinion that Ebenezer Mattoon is
      entitled to a seat, in the place of Samuel Lyman, resigned;
      Levi Lincoln, in the place of Dwight Foster, appointed a
      Senator of the United States; and John Stewart, in the
      place of Thomas Hartley, deceased."


_Election of President._

_Resolved_, That this House will attend in the Chamber of the Senate on
Wednesday next at twelve o'clock, for the purpose of being present at
the opening and counting of the votes for President and Vice President
of the United States; that Mr. RUTLEDGE and Mr. NICHOLAS be appointed
tellers, to act jointly with the teller appointed on the part of the
Senate, to make a list of the votes for President and Vice President of
the United States, 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, which shall be entered on the journals; and if it shall
appear that a choice hath been made agreeably to the constitution, such
entry on the journals shall be deemed a sufficient declaration thereof.

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do acquaint the Senate
therewith.


WEDNESDAY, February 11.

On motion, it was

_Resolved_, That all letters and packets to JOHN ADAMS, now President of
the United States, after the expiration of his term of office, and
during his life, may be transmitted by post, free of postage.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said
resolution; and that Mr. OTIS, Mr. THATCHER, and Mr. SHEPARD, be
appointed a committee to prepare and bring in the same.

_Election of President._

On this day, being the day by law appointed for counting the votes of
the Electors of President and Vice President, there were present the
following Representatives, respectively, that is to say:

      _From New Hampshire._--Abiel Foster, Jonathan Freeman,
      James Sheafe, and Samuel Tenney.

      _From Massachusetts._--Theodore Sedgwick (Speaker), John
      Read, Joseph P. Varnum, William Shepard, Peleg Wadsworth,
      Silas Lee, Lemuel Williams, George Thatcher, Bailey
      Bartlett, Phanuel Bishop, Harrison G. Otis, Nathan Read,
      Levi Lincoln, and Ebenezer Mattoon.

      _From Connecticut._--John Davenport, Roger Griswold, Samuel
      W. Dana, Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich, William
      Edmond, and John C. Smith.

      _From Vermont._--Matthew Lyon, and Lewis R. Morris.

      _From Rhode Island._--Christopher G. Champlin, and John
      Brown.

      _From New York._--John Smith, Philip Van Cortlandt, Jonas
      Platt, Henry Glenn, John Thompson, Theodorus Bailey, John
      Bird, William Cooper, Lucas Elmendorph, and Edward
      Livingston.

      _From New Jersey._--James Linn, Aaron Kitchell, John
      Condit, James H. Imlay, and Franklin Davenport.

      _From Pennsylvania._--Robert Brown, Albert Gallatin, Andrew
      Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, John Wilkes Kittera,
      Michael Leib, Peter Muhlenberg, John Smilie, John Stewart,
      Richard Thomas, Robert Waln, and Henry Woods.

      _From Delaware._--James A. Bayard.

      _From Maryland._--John Chew Thomas, Samuel Smith, Gabriel
      Christie, William Craik, Joseph H. Nicholson, George Dent,
      George Baer, and John Dennis.

      _From Virginia._--Samuel J. Cabell, Matthew Clay, John
      Dawson, Joseph Eggleston, Thomas Evans, Samuel Goode, Edwin
      Gray, David Holmes, George Jackson, Henry Lee, Anthony New,
      John Nicholas, Robert Page, Josiah Parker, Leven Powell,
      John Randolph, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, and Lyttleton W.
      Tazewell.

      _From North Carolina._--Willis Alston, Joseph Dickson,
      William Barry Grove, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill,
      Nathaniel Macon, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Richard Stanford,
      David Stone, and Robert Williams.

      _From South Carolina._--Robert Goodloe Harper, Benjamin
      Huger, Abraham Nott, Thomas Pinckney, and John Rutledge.

      _From Georgia._--Benjamin Taliaferro.

      _From Kentucky._--John Fowler, and Thomas T. Davis.

      _From Tennessee._--William Charles Cole Claiborne.

Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the House, then went into the Senate Chamber,
and took seats therein, when both Houses being assembled, Mr. RUTLEDGE
and Mr. NICHOLAS, the tellers on the part of this House, together with
Mr. WELLS, the teller on the part of the Senate, took seats at a table
provided for them, in the front of the President of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT of the Senate, in the presence of both Houses, proceeded
to open the certificates of the Electors of the several States,
beginning with the State of New Hampshire; and as the votes were read,
the tellers on the part of each House, counted and took lists of the
same, which being compared, were delivered to the President of the
Senate, and are as follows:

---------------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+
    STATES.    |Thomas   |  Aaron  |  John   |Charles C.|  John   |
               |Jefferson|  Burr   |  Adams  |Pinckney  |  Jay.   |
---------------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+
New Hampshire  |    -    |    -    |    6    |    6     |         |
Massachusetts  |    -    |    -    |   16    |   16     |         |
Rhode Island   |    -    |    -    |    4    |    3     |    1    |
Connecticut    |    -    |    -    |    9    |    9     |         |
Vermont        |    -    |    -    |    4    |    4     |         |
New York       |   12    |   12    |         |          |         |
New Jersey     |    -    |    -    |    7    |    7     |         |
Pennsylvania   |    8    |    8    |    7    |    7     |         |
Delaware       |    -    |    -    |    3    |    3     |         |
Maryland       |    5    |    5    |    5    |    5     |         |
Virginia       |   21    |   21    |         |          |         |
Kentucky       |    4    |    4    |         |          |         |
North Carolina |    8    |    8    |    4    |    4     |         |
Tennessee      |    3    |    3    |         |          |         |
South Carolina |    8    |    8    |         |          |         |
Georgia        |    4    |    4    |         |          |         |
               |   --    |   --    |   --    |   --     |   --    |
               |   73    |   73    |   65    |   64     |    1    |
---------------+---------+---------+---------+----------+---------+

_Recapitulation of the Votes of the Electors._

Thomas Jefferson,              73
Aaron Burr,                    73
John Adams,                    65
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney,   64
John Jay,                       1

The PRESIDENT of the Senate, in pursuance of the duty enjoined upon him,
announced the state of the votes to both Houses, and declared that
THOMAS JEFFERSON of Virginia, and AARON BURR of New York, having the
greatest number, and a majority of the votes of all the Electors
appointed, and being equal, it remained for the House of Representatives
to determine the choice.

The two Houses then separated; and the House of Representatives being
returned to their Chamber, proceeded, in the manner prescribed by the
constitution, to the choice of a President of the United States, and the
following members were appointed tellers of the respective States, to
examine ballots of each State, pursuant to the sixth rule adopted by the
House on the ninth instant, to wit:

For the State of New Hampshire, Abiel Foster; Massachusetts, Harrison G.
Otis; Rhode Island, Christopher G. Champlin; Connecticut, Roger
Griswold; Vermont, Lewis R. Morris; New York, Theodorus Bailey; New
Jersey, James Linn; Pennsylvania, Albert Gallatin; Delaware, James A.
Bayard; Maryland, George Dent; Virginia, Lyttleton W. Tazewell; North
Carolina, Nathaniel Macon; South Carolina, Thomas Pinckney; Georgia,
Benjamin Taliaferro; Kentucky, John Fowler; Tennessee, William Charles
Cole Claiborne.

The members of the respective States then proceeded to ballot, in the
manner prescribed by the rule aforesaid, and the tellers appointed by
the States, respectively, having put duplicates of their votes into the
general ballot boxes prepared for the purpose, the votes contained
therein were taken out and counted, and the result being reported to the
SPEAKER, he declared to the House that the votes of eight States had
been given for THOMAS JEFFERSON, of Virginia; the votes of six States
for AARON BURR, of New York; and that the votes of two States were
divided.

The constitution of the United States requiring that the votes of nine
States should be necessary to constitute a choice of President of the
United States, a motion was made and seconded, that the ballot for the
President be repeated in one hour; and, the question being taken by
States, it passed in the negative.

The States then proceeded, in the manner aforesaid, to a second ballot;
and, upon examination of the ballot boxes, it appeared that the votes of
eight States had been given for THOMAS JEFFERSON, of Virginia; and the
votes of six States for AARON BURR, of New York; and that the votes of
two States were divided.

The States then proceeded in like manner to a third ballot; and, upon
examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

The States then proceeded in like manner to a fourth ballot; and, upon
examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

The States then proceeded in like manner to a fifth ballot; and, upon
examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

The States then proceeded in like manner to a sixth ballot; and, upon
examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

The States then proceeded in like manner to a seventh ballot; and, upon
examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

A motion was then made and seconded, that the States proceed again to
ballot in one hour; and, the question being taken thereupon, it was
resolved in the affirmative--the votes of the States being ayes 12, noes
4.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded, in manner aforesaid, to the eighth ballot; and, upon
examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same, to wit:

The votes of eight States for THOMAS JEFFERSON, of Virginia; the votes
of six States for AARON BURR, of New York; and the votes of two States
were divided.

The States then proceeded to a ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth,
thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth ballots; and, upon examination of
the ballots, respectively, the result was declared to be the same.

A motion was then made and seconded, that the States proceed again to
ballot at ten o'clock; and the question being taken thereupon, it passed
in the negative--the votes of the States being ayes 7, noes 9.

_Ordered_, That the next ballot be repeated at nine o'clock, and not
before.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the sixteenth ballot; and, upon
examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated in one hour.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the seventeenth ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at eleven o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the eighteenth ballot; and upon
examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

A motion was then made and seconded, that the ballot be repeated
to-morrow at eleven o'clock and not before.

The question being taken thereupon, it passed in the negative.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at twelve o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the nineteenth ballot; and, upon
examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated in one hour.


FEBRUARY 12, 1 o'clock, A.M.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the twentieth ballot; and, upon
the examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at two o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the twenty-first ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at half after two o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the twenty-second ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at four o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the twenty-third ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at five o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the twenty-fourth ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at six o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the twenty-fifth ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at seven o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the twenty-sixth ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at eight o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the twenty-seventh ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at twelve o'clock, and not
before.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the twenty-eighth ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated to-morrow at eleven o'clock, and
not before.


FEBRUARY 13.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the twenty-ninth ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated to-morrow at twelve o'clock, and
not before.


FEBRUARY 14.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the thirtieth ballot; and, upon
examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at one o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the thirty-first ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at two o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the thirty-second ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at three o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the thirty-third ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated on Monday next at twelve o'clock,
and not before.


FEBRUARY 16.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the thirty-fourth ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated to-morrow at twelve o'clock, and
not before.


FEBRUARY 17.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the thirty-fifth ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, the result was declared to be the same.

_Ordered_, That the ballot be repeated at one o'clock.

The time agreed upon by the last-mentioned vote being expired, the
States proceeded in manner aforesaid to the thirty-sixth ballot; and,
upon examination thereof, and the result being reported by the tellers
to the SPEAKER, the SPEAKER declared to the House that the votes of ten
States had been given for THOMAS JEFFERSON, of Virginia; the votes of
four States for AARON BURR, of New York; and that the votes of two
States had been given in blank; and, that, consequently, THOMAS
JEFFERSON, of Virginia, had been, agreeably to the constitution, elected
President of the United States, for the term of four years, commencing
on the fourth day of March next.[60]

_Ordered_, That Mr. PINCKNEY, Mr. TAZEWELL, and Mr. BAYARD, be appointed
a committee to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify
him that THOMAS JEFFERSON is elected President of the United States, for
the term commencing on the fourth day of March next.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that
THOMAS JEFFERSON has been duly elected President of the United States,
for the term of four years commencing on the fourth day of March next;
and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message.


THURSDAY, February 19.

_State Balances._

Mr. HILL, from the committee appointed to inquire into the expediency of
extinguishing the claims of the United States for certain balances
which, by the Commissioners appointed to settle the accounts between the
United States and the several States, were reported to be due from
several of the States to the United States, now made a report,
accompanied by a bill to extinguish the claims of the United States, for
certain balances reported to be due from several of the States to the
United States; which was read, and the consideration of the said report
and bill postponed until the third day of March next.

The report is as follows:

      The committee appointed to inquire into the expediency of
      extinguishing the claims of the United States for certain
      balances which, by the Commissioners appointed to settle
      the accounts between the United States and the several
      States, were reported to be due from several of the States
      to the United States, report--

      That the Commissioners aforesaid, on the liquidation of the
      accounts, reported that there were due from several of the
      States certain balances, that is to say:

                 New York                $2,074,846
                 Pennsylvania                76,709
                 Delaware                   612,428
                 Maryland                   151,430
                 Virginia                   100,879
                 North Carolina             501,082

      That Congress by an act passed the 15th February, 1799,
      engaged that any State so reported against might discharge
      itself from the claim, by an engagement in the form of a
      legislative act, to be passed before the first of April,
      1800, to pay at the Treasury of the United States, within
      five years, the amount of the sum assumed by the United
      States in the debt of such State; or by expending moneys to
      the like amount within the time aforesaid in the erection
      of fortifications. And the said act of Congress provides
      further, that any payment or expenditure aforesaid shall be
      credited at the Treasury to the amount of stock which said
      payment or expenditure is equal to the purchase of at the
      market prices of stock. That the State of New York passed,
      within the time limited, the Legislative act required by
      the act of Congress aforesaid, and has already received
      credit at the Treasury for the sum of $222,810 06, for
      having previously expended in fortifications the sum of
      $136,533 82. That no other State has acceded to the terms
      offered by the said act of Congress.

      The committee further report, that, by the immediate
      operation of the said act of Congress, and of the
      Legislature of the State of New York, that State was
      exonerated and released from a very considerable part of
      the balance reported, to wit, the sum of $891,129 31, the
      balance reported against the State being to that amount
      more than the sum subscribed on the assumption of the
      United States in the debt of that State, the sum so
      subscribed amounts to $1,183,716 69; that the sum of
      $891,129 31, exceeds the whole amount of the balance
      reported to be due from any one of the States, and the
      aggregate amount of the whole of the balances, with the
      exception of the balance reported to be due from the State
      of Delaware.

      The committee, without entering into a discussion of the
      principles whereon the settlement of the accounts by the
      Commissioners was founded, remark, that as none of the
      States but the State of New York have manifested any
      disposition to pay the balances reported against them,
      whether the terms offered by the said act of Congress
      operate favorably or not, and none of them have assented to
      the justice or equity of the claim of the United States,
      and no means exist of exacting payment, it seems unwise to
      keep alive a claim which cannot be enforced, and may have
      the effect of producing irritation and exciting discontent;
      and as the act of Congress has already released the State
      of New York from so large an amount and enabled that State,
      with ease and advantage, to discharge the residue of the
      balance reported to be due from that State, the committee
      are of opinion that a release of the balances due from the
      other States is expedient, and for this purpose report a
      bill, which is submitted.


SATURDAY, February 21.

_President Elect._

Mr. PINCKNEY, from the committee instructed on the eighteenth instant to
wait on the PRESIDENT elect, to notify him of his election, reported
that the committee had performed that service, and addressed the
PRESIDENT elect in the following words, to wit:

      "The committee beg leave to express their wishes for the
      prosperity of your Administration; and their sincere desire
      that it may promote your own happiness and the welfare of
      our country."

To which the PRESIDENT elect was pleased to make the following reply:

      "I receive, gentlemen, with profound thankfulness, this
      testimony of confidence from the great Representative
      Council of our nation: it fills up the measure of that
      grateful satisfaction which had already been derived from
      the suffrages of my fellow-citizens themselves, designating
      me as one of those to whom they were willing to commit this
      charge, the most important of all others to them. In
      deciding between the candidates, whom their equal vote
      presented to your choice, I am sensible that age has been
      respected rather than more active and useful
      qualifications.

      "I know the difficulties of the station to which I am
      called, and feel, and acknowledge, my incompetence to them:
      But, whatsoever of understanding, whatsoever of diligence,
      whatsoever of justice, or of affectionate concern for the
      happiness of man, it has pleased Providence to place within
      the compass of my faculties, shall be called forth for the
      discharge of the duties confided to me, and for procuring
      to my fellow-citizens all the benefits which our
      constitution has placed under the guardianship of the
      General Government.

      "Guided by the wisdom and patriotism of those to whom it
      belongs to express the Legislative will of the nation, I
      will give to that will a faithful execution.

      "I pray you, gentlemen, to convey to the honorable body
      from which you are deputed, the homage of my humble
      acknowledgments, and the sentiments of zeal and fidelity by
      which I shall endeavor to merit these proofs of confidence
      from the nation, and its representatives; and accept,
      yourselves, my particular thanks for the obliging terms in
      which you have been pleased to communicate their will.

                          "THOMAS JEFFERSON.

      "FEBRUARY 20, 1801."

_Sedition Act._

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill to repeal
part of an act, entitled "An act in addition to the act, entitled 'An
act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,'"
and to continue in force the residue of the same.

On the question that the said bill be engrossed for a third reading--

Mr. DAWSON said, when the law which this bill was intended to continue
was first passed, I gave to it my dissent; I did it from a conviction on
my mind that it does violate that constitution which I have sworn to
support, and from a persuasion that the then state of things did not
require it: that while it begat an unjust suspicion of the American
character, it was a stain on our code of legislation.

If these were my impressions at that time, some reflection since, aided
by the productions of men whose names and talents will be long
remembered, and a knowledge of the sentiments of the State from which I
come, and of the people whom I represent, have confirmed those
impressions, and have resolved me to vote against that bill in every
shape and in every stage, and I hope that it will not be suffered to be
engrossed. Sir, it is well remembered by me, nor can it be forgotten by
any gentleman, on what grounds this law was advocated and first passed;
it was then supported and pressed upon us as a necessary link in a chain
of measures which a majority of the two Houses of Congress thought
proper to adopt to meet a particular crisis--to guard against the
supposed intrigues of a foreign nation--to give respectability and
energy to our Executive--to prevent its falling into disrepute with the
people, and to punish factious individuals. The history of the last two
years has, I am persuaded, convinced gentlemen how mistaken were their
opinions of the American character. With me they must now believe that
whatever difference there may be in our political principles, when the
safety, freedom, or honor of our country is threatened by a foreign
nation, like a band of brothers we will rally round our government, and
support it by means which the constitution of our country authorizes,
and which the energy of the case may require. How far this law has given
respectability or energy to our administration I will not pretend to
say; the events of the present day are an ample comment on that point;
but, after the experience which we have had, since some of the objects
for which it was formed do not exist, and others have not been answered,
I did hope that no attempt would have been made to continue it, and that
it would have been suffered to expire like its twin-brother, the Alien
law. In this hope, however, I have been disappointed; gentlemen have
come forward and supported it with a zeal, not uncommon to them on other
occasions, and unexpected in the present, when we were taught to believe
that they were at least indifferent about it, and new reasons have been
assigned for its continuance--formerly it was thought necessary to
protect the administration against the people; and now, sir, it is
wanted to guard individuals against an administration which may be weak
or wicked. Experience has, I am persuaded, convinced gentlemen that it
has not answered the first purpose, and I hope they will find it
unnecessary for the latter. Into whatever hands the administration of
our country may fall, its acts ought to be examined with that freedom
which becomes freemen, and with that decency which becomes gentlemen; so
long as they are guided by justice and wisdom, they will be supported
with decision and firmness by the friends to the administration;
whenever they shall descend from these great principles, the voice of
the people will again sweep the actors from the political theatre.

This law, sir, has been advocated, because it is said to ameliorate the
common law of England, and on this argument much dependence has been
placed; however, admitting it to be true, on a moment's reflection it
will not be found to merit any consideration; for, sir, let it be
remembered that the opponents to this law are also the opponents to the
adoption of that law as the law of the United States, and do not think
it authorized by the constitution; this is the doctrine which they have
uniformly contended for, and which, pardon me if I say, has been
established as fully as one point possibly can be; it is not therefore
probable, nay, I think it impossible, that they ever should appeal to it
to shield them. No, sir, supported by the justice and policy of their
measures, I trust they will need the aid of neither the Alien, Sedition,
nor Common law.

Sir, it will be unnecessary for me to touch on the unconstitutionality
of this law; it has been proven over and over again in this House, and
in every part of the continent, and if what has been said and written
has not convinced gentlemen, no effect would be produced by any thing
which I could say. But, sir, as some of the objects for which the law
was first enacted have passed by, and others have not been answered--as
the friends to the approaching administration do not wish it for their
protection, and the opponents will not need it for theirs, I do hope
that those gentlemen who doubt about the constitutionality will vote
with us, and that the bill will not be permitted to be engrossed.

The question was then taken, and the engrossment refused, 49 to 53, as
follows:

      YEAS.--George Baer, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, John
      Brown, Christopher G. Champlin, William Cooper, William
      Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Franklin Davenport,
      John Dennis, Joseph Dickson, William Edmond, Thomas Evans,
      Abiel Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey
      Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William Barry
      Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Archibald Henderson, William
      H. Hill, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Lee,
      Silas Lee, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G.
      Otis, Robert Page, Thomas Pinckney, Jonas Platt, Leven
      Powell, John Read, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William
      Shepard, John C. Smith, James Sheafe, Samuel Tenney, Geo.
      Thatcher, John Chew Thomas, Richard Thomas, Peleg
      Wadsworth, Robert Waln, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop,
      Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Matthew
      Clay, William C. C. Claiborne, John Condit, Thomas T.
      Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas
      Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, Samuel Goode,
      Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister,
      David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, George Jackson, Aaron
      Kitchell, Michael Leib, Levi Lincoln, Matthew Lyon, James
      Linn, Edward Livingston, Nathaniel Macon, Peter Muhlenberg,
      Anthony New, John Nicholas, Joseph H. Nicholson, Josiah
      Parker, John Randolph, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel
      Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Richard Stanford, David
      Stone, Thomas Sumter, John Stewart, Benjamin Taliaferro,
      John Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Lyttleton W.
      Tazewell, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, and
      Robert Williams.


WEDNESDAY, February 25.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
providing for a Naval Peace Establishment, and for other purposes; and,
after some time spent therein, the Committee rose and reported several
amendments thereto; which were read, but, an adjournment being called
for, the House adjourned.


FRIDAY, February 27.

_Uniform System of Bankruptcy._

The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported yesterday, from
the Committee of the whole House, to the bill to amend and continue in
force the act, entitled "An act to establish a uniform system of
bankruptcy throughout the United States;" whereupon the amendments
reported from the Committee of the whole House were, on the question
severally put thereon, agreed to by the House.

The said bill was then further amended at the Clerk's table; and, on the
question that the same be engrossed and read the third time, it was
resolved in the affirmative--yeas 49, nays 42, as follows:

      YEAS.--George Baer, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, John
      Bird, John Brown, Christopher G. Champlin, William Cooper,
      William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Franklin
      Davenport, John Dennis, George Dent, Joseph Dickson,
      William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Jonathan
      Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich,
      Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, Archibald Henderson,
      William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, James H. Imlay, John
      Wilkes Kittera, Silas Lee, Edward Livingston, Lewis R.
      Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Josiah Parker, Thomas Pinckney,
      Jonas Platt, Leven Powell, John Read, Nathan Read, William
      Shepard, Samuel Smith, John C. Smith, James Sheafe, Samuel
      Tenney, George Thatcher, John Chew Thomas, Peleg Wadsworth,
      Robert Waln, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop,
      Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Matthew Clay, William
      Charles Cole Claiborne, John Condit, John Dawson, Joseph
      Eggleston, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, Edwin Gray, Andrew
      Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, George
      Jackson, Aaron Kitchell, Michael Leib, Levi Lincoln,
      Matthew Lyon, James Linn, Nathaniel Macon, Peter
      Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Joseph H.
      Nicholson, John Randolph, John Smilie, John Smith, Richard
      Dobbs Spaight, Richard Stanford, David Stone, Thomas
      Sumter, John Stewart, Benjamin Taliaferro, John Thompson,
      Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Lyttleton W. Tazewell, and Joseph
      B. Varnum.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, be engrossed and
read the third time to-morrow.

_Naval Peace Establishment._

An engrossed bill providing for a Naval Peace Establishment, and for
other purposes, was read the third time; and, on the question that the
same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 69, nays 18.


SATURDAY, February 28.

An engrossed bill to augment the salaries of the District Judges in the
districts of Massachusetts, New York, Delaware, and Maryland,
respectively, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. GREGG, from the committee to whom was this day referred the memorial
of Thomas Claxton and others, made a report; which he delivered in at
the Clerk's table, where the same was twice read and considered;
whereupon,

_Resolved_, That Thomas Claxton, James Mathers, and Thomas Dunn, be
permitted to occupy, free of rent, until otherwise directed by Congress,
the houses now in their respective possession, the property of the
United States, in the public square in the City of Washington, on which
the Capitol stands; together with a small piece of ground contiguous to
each, for a garden, to be enclosed in such manner as not to interfere
with any of the public streets or avenues running through the said
square.

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of this House do carry the said resolution to
the Senate, and desire their concurrence.

Mr. GRISWOLD, from the committee appointed, presented a bill further to
amend the act, entitled "An act for establishing the temporary and
permanent seat of the Government of the United States;" which was read
twice, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
concerning the Mint; and, after some time spent therein, the committee
rose and reported one amendment thereto; which was twice read, and
agreed to by the House.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendment, be engrossed, and
read the third time to-day.

_Remonstrance of Georgia._

Mr. DANA, from the committee to whom was referred, on the seventh
ultimo, the memorial and remonstrance of the Legislature of the State of
Georgia, made a report; which was read, and ordered to be committed to a
Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

The report is as follows:

      The Committee to whom was referred the Address and
      Remonstrance of the Legislature of the State of Georgia,
      submit the following Report:

      The remonstrance complains of two acts of Congress
      respecting the Mississippi Territory; one passed in April,
      one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, the other in
      May, one thousand eight hundred; and prays for their
      repeal.

      The tract of country called the Mississippi Territory, is
      bounded on the west by the River Mississippi, on the east
      by the river Appalachicola, or Chatahoochee, on the south
      by the Southern boundary of the United States, and on the
      north by a line drawn from the confluence of the river
      Yazoo with the Mississippi, due east to the before
      mentioned river Chatahoochee.

      For a view of the claim of the United States to the
      territory in question, the committee, in the present
      instance, deem it sufficient to refer to a report of the
      Attorney General, made to the Senate, at the first session
      of the fourth Congress, and to the report of a committee of
      the House of Representatives, made at the first session of
      the sixth Congress. The last-mentioned report also contains
      a summary statement of a variety of individual claims to
      land within the territory.

      The claim of Georgia is particularly stated in the
      remonstrance referred to your committee.

      The two acts of Congress, of which the remonstrance
      complains, have provided for an adjustment of those claims,
      through the agency of Commissioners; and also for the
      establishment of a government over the Mississippi
      Territory, similar to that established by the ordinance of
      Congress, of July one thousand seven hundred and
      eighty-seven, for the Territory north-west of the river
      Ohio; saving and reserving to the State of Georgia all her
      right or claim to the said territory.

      Commissioners have accordingly been appointed on the part
      of the United States, and also on the part of Georgia, for
      negotiating an adjustment of their respective claims. No
      report has yet been laid before Congress from the
      Commissioners of the United States; but the business of
      their commission is understood to be yet pending.

      Considering this state of things, the committee deem it
      proper for them to abstain from any particular discussion
      of the several claims to the Mississippi Territory, while a
      hope is cherished that an amicable adjustment may be
      ultimately effected. Nor do they think it expedient to
      adopt any measure which may be prejudicial to an object so
      desirable.

      The committee therefore submit the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That it would not be proper at this time for
      the House to take any further order on the Address and
      Remonstrance of the Legislature of the State of Georgia."


MONDAY, March 2.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the President of the
United States elect, which was read, and is as follows:


                          WASHINGTON, _March 2, 1801_.

      SIR: I beg leave through you to inform the Honorable the
      House of Representatives of the United States, that I shall
      take the oath which the constitution prescribes to the
      President of the United States before he enters on the
      execution of his office, on Wednesday, the fourth instant,
      at twelve o'clock, in the Senate Chamber.

      I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect, sir,
      your most obedient, and most humble servant,

                          THOMAS JEFFERSON.

      HON. THEODORE SEDGWICK, _Speaker of the House of
      Representatives_.

_Ordered_, That said letter do lie on the table.

_Mausoleum to Washington._

The House proceeded to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate to
the bill entitled "An act to erect a mausoleum for GEORGE WASHINGTON:"
Whereupon,

A motion was made and seconded to amend the amendment of the Senate to
the first section of the said bill, by striking out, from the tenth line
thereof, the word "fifty," for the purpose of inserting, in lieu
thereof, the word "one hundred;"

And the question being taken thereupon, it passed in the negative--yeas
34, nays 49.

The said amendments of the Senate were then further amended at the
Clerk's table, and, on the question that the House do agree to the said
amendments as amended, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 46, nays
33, as follows:

      YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Bailey Bartlett, John Bird,
      Phanuel Bishop, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Matthew
      Clay, William C. C. Claiborne, Samuel W. Dana, John
      Davenport, John Dawson, Joseph Eggleston, John Fowler,
      Albert Gallatin, Chauncey Goodrich, Andrew Gregg, William
      Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, David Holmes,
      John Wilkes Kittera, Michael Leib, Levi Lincoln, Matthew
      Lyon, James Linn, Edward Livingston, Nathaniel Macon, Peter
      Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas, John Read, Nathan
      Read, Wm. Shepard, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith,
      Richard Dobbs Spaight, David Stone, Benjamin Taliaferro,
      Samuel Tenney, John Chew Thomas, John Thompson, Abram
      Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, and Peleg Wadsworth.

      NAYS.--James A. Bayard, John Brown, Christopher G.
      Champlin, Gabriel Christie, William Craik, Franklin
      Davenport, John Dennis, Joseph Dickson, William Edmond,
      Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Henry Glenn, Roger Griswold,
      Robert Goodloe Harper, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger,
      James H. Imlay, George Jackson, Henry Lee, Silas Lee,
      Ebenezer Mattoon, Robert Page, Thomas Pinckney, Jonas
      Platt, John Randolph, John C. Smith, Richard Stanford,
      Thomas Sumter, James Sheafe, John Stewart, George Thatcher,
      Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.


TUESDAY, 6 o'clock P. M., March 3.

_Thanks to the Speaker._

Mr. PAGE moved the following resolution:

      _Resolved_, That the thanks of the House be presented to
      Theodore Sedgwick for his conduct while in the chair of
      this House.

The question was taken whether this motion was in order. It was decided
to be in order.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. CHRISTIE said he should not point out the improprieties in the
conduct of the Speaker while in the chair, otherwise than by his vote,
though he possessed the right to call up to the recollection of the
House the many inconsistencies his presidency had been marked with. In
doing that, Mr. SPEAKER, I shall behave better to you than you have ever
done to me.

The cry of "order!" "order!" prevented any more being said, and Mr. C.
sat down.

The yeas and nays were then taken, and resulted--yeas 40, nays 35.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER made his acknowledgments to the House in the
manner following:

      Accept, gentlemen, my thanks, I pray you, for the
      respectful terms in which you have been pleased to express
      the opinion you entertain of the manner in which I have
      discharged the arduous duties of the station to which I was
      raised by your kind regard.

      Although I am conscious of having intended faithfully to
      execute the trust confided to this chair, yet I am sensible
      that, whatever success may have attended my endeavors, is
      justly attributable to the candid, honorable, and firm
      support which you have constantly afforded. I cannot lay
      the least claim to merit for any thing that I have done;
      because the generous confidence which you had reposed in
      me, demanded that I should devote all my feeble talents to
      your service.

      Being now about to retire from this House, and, as I hope,
      from the public councils for ever, permit me, gentlemen, to
      bid you, collectively and individually, an affectionate
      farewell. It is true that I have long wished to indulge
      repose in the shade of private life; but the moment of
      separation inflicts an anguish inexpressible by language.
      It is a separation from men of dignity of character, of
      honorable sentiments, and of disinterested patriotism; an
      association with whom has been my pride and solace amidst
      all the fatigue and vexation of public life. Of the
      friendship of such men, long, uninterrupted and cordial as
      it has been, I shall always cherish a grateful remembrance.
      May you receive the reward most grateful to generous
      spirits, the reward of witnessing, as the effects of your
      labors, the increasing prosperity, and happiness, and
      glory, of your country.

      As the last words which I shall utter, as a public man,
      allow me to declare, that those with whom I have had the
      honor, here, to act and think, whose confidence I have
      enjoyed, whose bosoms have been opened to my inspection, in
      my cool and reflected opinion, deserve all of esteem,
      affection, and gratitude, which their countrymen can
      bestow. On this occasion I deem myself authorized, from the
      present circumstances, to make this declaration; and I do
      it in the most solemn manner, in the presence of the
      assembled Representatives of America; and not only so, but
      in the awful presence of that heart-searching Being to
      whom I feel myself responsible for all my conduct. May the
      Almighty keep you in his holy protection. Farewell.

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 to 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 foregoing resolution of the Senate,
agreed to the same, and appointed Mr. PINCKNEY and Mr. GROVE the
committee on the part of this House.

Mr. PINCKNEY, from the joint committee of the two Houses, appointed to
notify the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES of the proposed recess of
Congress, reported that the committee had, according to order, performed
that service, and that the PRESIDENT signified to them that he had no
further communication to make, but the expression of his wishes for the
health and happiness of the members, and a pleasant journey on their
return to their homes and families.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this
House, having completed the business before them, are now ready 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,
Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, _sine die_.[61]




SEVENTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, DECEMBER 7, 1801.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,--THOMAS JEFFERSON.

LIST OF MEMBERS


SENATORS.

_New Hampshire._--Simeon Olcott, James Sheafe.

_Vermont._--S. R. Bradley, Nathaniel Chipman.

_Massachusetts._--Jonathan Mason.

_Rhode Island._--Christopher Ellery, Theodore Foster.

_Connecticut._--James Hillhouse, Uriah Tracy.

_New York._--John Armstrong, G. Morris.

_New Jersey._--Aaron Ogden, Jonathan Dayton.

_Pennsylvania._--George Logan, Peter Muhlenberg.

_Delaware._--William H. Willes, Samuel White.

_Maryland._--John E. Howard, Robert Wright.

_Virginia._--Stevens T. Mason, Wilson C. Nicholas.

_North Carolina._--Jesse Franklin, David Stone.

_South Carolina._--John C. Calhoun, Jacob Read.

_Georgia._--A. Baldwin, James Jackson.

_Tennessee._--William Cocke, Joseph Anderson.

_Kentucky._--John Breckenridge, John Browne.


REPRESENTATIVES.

_New Hampshire._--Abiel Foster, Joseph Pearce, George B. Upham.

_Vermont._--Lewis R. Morris, Israel Smith.

_Massachusetts._--John Bacon, Phanuel Bishop, Manasseh Cutler, Richard
Cutts, William Eustis, Seth Hastings, Silas Lee, Eben Mattoon, Nathan
Read, William Shepard, Josiah Smith, Joseph B. Varnum, P. Wadsworth,
Lemuel Williams.

_Rhode Island._--Joseph Stanton, Thomas Tillinghast.

_Connecticut._--Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Calvin Goddard, Roger
Griswold, Elias Perkins, John C. Smith, Benjamin Talmadge.

_New York._--Theodore Bailey, Lucas Elmendorph, E. Livingston, Samuel L.
Mitchill, Thomas Morris, John Smith, David Thomas, Philip Van Cortlandt,
John P. Van Ness, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Benjamin Walker.

_New Jersey._--John Condit, Ebenezer Elmer, William Helms, James Mott,
Henry Southard.

_Pennsylvania._--Thomas Boude, Robert Brown, Andrew Gregg, John A.
Hanna, Joseph Heister, Joseph Hemphill, William Hoge, William Jones,
Michael Leib, John Smilie, John Stewart, Isaac Van Horne, Henry Woods.

_Delaware._--James A. Bayard.

_Maryland._--John Archer, John Campbell, John Dennis, Daniel Heister,
Joseph H. Nicholson, Thomas Plater, Samuel Smith, Richard Sprigg.

_Virginia._--Richard Brent, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, John
Clopton, John Dawson, William B. Giles, Edwin Gray, David Holmes, John
Geo. Jackson, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, John Randolph, John Smith,
John Stratton, John Taliaferro, Philip E. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John
Trigg.

_North Carolina._--Willis Alston, William B. Grove, Archibald Henderson,
William H. Hill, James Holland, Charles Johnston, Nathaniel Macon,
Richard Stanford, John Stanley, Robert Williams.

_South Carolina._--William Butler, Benj. Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Thomas
Moore, John Rutledge, Thomas Sumter.

_Georgia._--John Milledge, Benjamin Taliaferro.

_Mississippi._--Narsworthy Hunter.

_Tennessee._--William Dickson.

_Kentucky._--Thomas T. Davis, John Fowler.

_Ohio._--Paul Fearing.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, December 7, 1801.

The first session of the Seventh Congress of the United States commenced
this day, conformably to the constitution, and the Senate assembled at
the Capitol in the City of Washington.

PRESENT:

THEODORE FOSTER, from Rhode Island.

NATHANIEL CHIPMAN, from Vermont.

WILLIAM HILL WELLS and SAMUEL WHITE, from Delaware.

JOHN E. HOWARD, from Maryland.

STEVENS THOMPSON MASON and WILSON CARY NICHOLAS, from Virginia.

ABRAHAM BALDWIN, from Georgia.

JOSEPH ANDERSON and WILLIAM COOKE, from Tennessee.

STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, appointed a Senator by the State of Vermont, for the
remainder of the term for which their late Senator, Elijah Paine, was
appointed; JOHN BRECKENRIDGE, appointed a Senator by the State of
Kentucky; CHRISTOPHER ELLERY, appointed a Senator by the State of Rhode
Island, for the remainder of the term for which their late Senator, Ray
Greene, was appointed; JAMES JACKSON, appointed a Senator by the State
of Georgia; GEORGE LOGAN, appointed a Senator by the Executive of the
State of Pennsylvania, in the place of their late Senator, Peter
Muhlenberg, resigned; SIMEON OLCOTT, appointed a Senator by the State of
New Hampshire, for the remainder of the term for which their late
Senator, Samuel Livermore, was appointed; URIAH TRACY, appointed a
Senator by the State of Connecticut; and ROBERT WRIGHT, appointed a
Senator by the State of Maryland, severally produced their credentials,
and took their seats in the Senate.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of
a President, _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides; and ABRAHAM
BALDWIN was chosen.

The PRESIDENT administered the oath, as the law prescribes, to Mr.
BRADLEY, Mr. BRECKENRIDGE, Mr. ELLERY, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. OLCOTT, Mr.
TRACY, and Mr. WRIGHT, and the affirmation to Mr. LOGAN.

_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 ABRAHAM BALDWIN,
President of the Senate, _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
ABRAHAM BALDWIN, President of the Senate, _pro tempore_.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a
quorum of the House is assembled, and have elected NATHANIEL MACON their
Speaker, and are ready to proceed to business.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. ANDERSON and JACKSON be a 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 agree to the resolution of the Senate for the appointment of a
joint committee to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and have
appointed a committee on their part.

Mr. ANDERSON reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and acquainted him that a quorum of
both Houses is assembled, and that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
informed the committee that he would make a communication to them by
message to-morrow.


TUESDAY, December 8.

JONATHAN DAYTON and AARON OGDEN, from the State of New Jersey, and JESSE
FRANKLIN, from the State of North Carolina, severally attended.

_Resolved_, That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed
to Congress for the present session, one by each House, who shall
interchange weekly.

_Presidents Message._

The following letter and Message were received from the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, by Mr. Lewis, his Secretary:

                          DECEMBER 8, 1801.

      SIR: The circumstances under which we find ourselves at
      this place rendering inconvenient the mode heretofore
      practised, of making by personal address the first
      communications between the Legislative and Executive
      branches, I have adopted that by Message, as used on all
      subsequent occasions through the session. In doing this I
      have had principal regard to the convenience of the
      Legislature, to the economy of their time, to their relief
      from the embarrassment of immediate answers, on subjects
      not yet fully before them, and to the benefits thence
      resulting to the public affairs. Trusting that a procedure
      founded in these motives will meet their approbation, I beg
      leave, through you, sir, to communicate the enclosed
      Message, with the documents accompanying it, to the
      honorable the Senate, and pray you to accept, for yourself
      and them, the homage of my high respect and
      consideration.[62]

                          THOMAS JEFFERSON.

      The Hon. the PRESIDENT of the Senate.

      _Fellow-citizens of the Senate, and House of
      Representatives_:

      It is a circumstance of sincere gratification to me that,
      on meeting the great council of our nation, I am able to
      announce to them, on grounds of reasonable certainty, that
      the wars and troubles which for so many years afflicted our
      sister nations, have at length come to an end; and that the
      communications of peace and commerce are once more opening
      among them. Whilst we devoutly return thanks to the
      beneficent Being who has been pleased to breathe into them
      the spirit of conciliation and forgiveness, we are bound
      with peculiar gratitude, to be thankful to him that our own
      peace has been preserved through so perilous a season, and
      ourselves permitted quietly to cultivate the earth, and to
      practise and improve those arts which tend to increase our
      comforts. The assurances, indeed, of friendly disposition,
      received from all the powers with whom we have principal
      relations, had inspired a confidence that our peace with
      them would not have been disturbed. But a cessation of
      irregularities which had affected the commerce of neutral
      nations, and of the irritations and injuries produced by
      them, cannot but add to this confidence, and strengthens,
      at the same time, the hope that wrongs committed on
      unoffending friends, under a pressure of circumstances,
      will now be reviewed with candor, and will be considered as
      founding just claims of restitution for the past, and new
      assurances for the future.

      Among our Indian neighbors, also, a spirit of peace and
      friendship generally prevails; and I am happy to inform you
      that the continued efforts to introduce among them the
      implements and the practice of husbandry, and of the
      household arts, have not been without success; that they
      are becoming more and more sensible of the superiority of
      this dependence for clothing and subsistence, over the
      precarious resources of hunting and fishing; and already we
      are able to announce that, instead of that constant
      diminution of their numbers, produced by their wars and
      their wants, some of them begin to experience an increase
      of population.

      To this state of general peace with which we have been
      blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least
      considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with
      demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had
      permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply
      before a given day. The style of the demands admitted but
      one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the
      Mediterranean, with assurances to that power of our sincere
      desire to remain in peace; but with orders to protect our
      commerce against the threatened attack. The measure was
      seasonable and salutary. The Bey had already declared war.
      His cruisers were out. Two had arrived at Gibraltar. Our
      commerce in the Mediterranean was blockaded, and that of
      the Atlantic in peril. The arrival of our squadron
      dispelled the danger. One of the Tripolitan cruisers,
      having fallen in with and engaged the small schooner
      Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant Sterret, which had gone
      as a tender to our larger vessels, was captured, after a
      heavy slaughter of her men, without the loss of a single
      one on our part. The bravery exhibited by our citizens on
      that element will, I trust, be a testimony to the world
      that it is not the want of that virtue which makes us seek
      their peace, but a conscientious desire to direct the
      energies of our nation to the multiplication of the human
      race, and not to its destruction. Unauthorized by the
      constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go
      beyond the line of defence, the vessel, being disabled from
      committing further hostilities, was liberated with its
      crew. The Legislature will doubtless consider whether, by
      authorizing measures of offence also, they will place our
      force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries. I
      communicate all material information on this subject, that,
      in the exercise of this important function confided by the
      constitution to the Legislature exclusively, their judgment
      may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every
      circumstance of weight.

      I wish I could say that our situation with all the other
      Barbary States was entirely satisfactory. Discovering that
      some delays had taken place in the performance of certain
      articles stipulated by us, I thought it my duty, by
      immediate measures for fulfilling them, to vindicate to
      ourselves the right of considering the effect of departure
      from stipulation on their side. From the papers which will
      be laid before you, you will be enabled to judge whether
      our treaties are regarded by them as fixing at all the
      measure of their demands, or, as guarding from the exercise
      of force our vessels within their power; and to consider
      how far it will be safe and expedient to leave our affairs
      with them in their present posture.

      I lay before you the result of the census lately taken of
      our inhabitants, to a conformity with which we are now to
      reduce the ensuing ratio of representation and taxation.
      You will perceive that the increase of numbers, during the
      last ten years, proceeding in geometrical ratio, promises a
      duplication in little more than twenty-two years. We
      contemplate this rapid growth, and the prospect it holds up
      to us, not with a view to the injuries it may enable us to
      do to others in some future day, but to the settlement of
      the extensive country still remaining vacant within our
      limits, to the multiplication of men susceptible of
      happiness, educated in the love of order, habituated to
      self-government, and valuing its blessings above all price.

      Other circumstances, combined with the increase of numbers,
      have produced an augmentation of revenue arising from
      consumption, in a ratio far beyond that of population
      alone; and, though the changes in foreign relations now
      taking place, so desirably for the whole world, may for a
      season affect this branch of revenue, yet, weighing all
      probabilities of expense, as well as of income, there is
      reasonable ground of confidence that we may now safely
      dispense with all the internal taxes--comprehending excise,
      stamps, auctions, licenses, carriages, and refined sugars;
      to which the postage on newspapers may be added, to
      facilitate the progress of information; and that the
      remaining sources of revenue will be sufficient to provide
      for the support of Government, to pay the interest of the
      public debts, and to discharge the principals within
      shorter periods than the laws or the general expectation
      had contemplated. War, indeed, and untoward events, may
      change this prospect of things, and call for expenses which
      the imposts could not meet. But sound principles will not
      justify our taxing the industry of our fellow-citizens to
      accumulate treasure for wars to happen we know not when,
      and which might not, perhaps, happen, but from the
      temptations offered by that treasure.

      These views, however, of reducing our burdens, are formed
      on the expectation that a sensible, and at the same time a
      salutary, reduction may take place in our habitual
      expenditures. For this purpose those of the civil
      Government, the army, and navy, will need revisal. When we
      consider that this Government is charged with the external
      and mutual relations only of these States; that the States
      themselves have principal care of our persons, our
      property, and our reputation, constituting the great field
      of human concerns, we may well doubt whether our
      organization is not too complicated, too expensive; whether
      offices and officers have not been multiplied
      unnecessarily, and sometimes injuriously to the service
      they were meant to promote. I will cause to be laid before
      you an essay towards a statement of those who, under public
      employment of various kinds, draw money from the Treasury,
      or from our citizens. Time has not permitted a perfect
      enumeration, the ramifications of office being too
      multiplied and remote to be completely traced in a first
      trial. Among those who are dependent on Executive
      discretion, I have begun the reduction of what was deemed
      unnecessary. The expenses of diplomatic agency have been
      considerably diminished. The inspectors of internal
      revenue, who were found to obstruct the accountability of
      the institution, have been discontinued. Several agencies,
      created by Executive authority, on salaries fixed by that
      also, have been suppressed, and should suggest the
      expediency of regulating that power by law, so as to
      subject its exercise to Legislative inspection and
      sanction. Other reformations of the same kind will be
      pursued with that caution which is requisite, in removing
      useless things, not to injure what is retained. But the
      great mass of public offices is established by law, and
      therefore by law alone can be abolished. Should the
      Legislature think it expedient to pass this roll in review,
      and try all its parts by the test of public utility, they
      may be assured of every aid and light which Executive
      information can yield. Considering the general tendency to
      multiply offices and dependencies, and to increase expenses
      to the ultimate term of burden which the citizens can bear,
      it behooves us to avail ourselves of every occasion which
      presents itself for taking off the surcharge; that it never
      may be seen here that, after leaving to labor the smallest
      portion of its earnings on which it can subsist, Government
      shall itself consume the whole residue of what it was
      instituted to guard.

      In our care, too, of the public contributions intrusted to
      our direction, it would be prudent to multiply barriers
      against their dissipation, by appropriating specific sums
      to every specific purpose susceptible of definition; by
      disallowing all applications of money varying from the
      appropriation in object, or transcending it in amount; by
      reducing the undefined field of contingencies, and thereby
      circumscribing discretionary powers over money; and by
      bringing back to a single department all accountabilities
      for money, where the examinations may be prompt,
      efficacious, and uniform.

      An account of the receipts and expenditures of the last
      year, as prepared by the Secretary of the Treasury, will,
      as usual, be laid before you. The success which has
      attended the late sales of the public lands shows that,
      with attention, they may be made an important source of
      receipt. Among the payments those made in discharge of the
      principal and interest of the national debt, will show that
      the public faith has been exactly maintained. To these will
      be added an estimate of appropriations necessary for the
      ensuing year. This last will, of course, be affected by
      such modifications of the system of expense as you shall
      think proper to adopt.

      A statement has been formed by the Secretary of War, on
      mature consideration, of all the posts and stations where
      garrisons will be expedient, and of the number of men
      requisite for each garrison. The whole amount is
      considerably short of the present Military Establishment.
      For the surplus no particular use can be pointed out. For
      defence against invasion their number is as nothing; nor is
      it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be
      kept up in time of peace, for that purpose. Uncertain as we
      must ever be of the particular point in our circumference
      where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force
      which can be ready at every point, and competent to oppose
      them, is the body of neighboring citizens, as formed into a
      militia. On these, collected from the parts most
      convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading force,
      it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but
      if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence
      until regulars may be engaged to relieve them. These
      considerations render it important that we should, at every
      session, continue to amend the defects which from time to
      time show themselves in the laws for regulating the
      militia, until they are sufficiently perfect: nor should we
      now, or at any time, separate, until we can say that we
      have done every thing for the militia which we could do
      were an enemy at our door.

      The provision of military stores on hand will be laid
      before you, that you may judge of the additions still
      requisite.

      With respect to the extent to which our naval preparations
      should be carried, some difference of opinion may be
      expected to appear; but just attention to the circumstances
      of every part of the Union will doubtless reconcile all. A
      small force will probably continue to be wanted for actual
      service in the Mediterranean. Whatever annual sum beyond
      that you may think proper to appropriate to naval
      preparations, would perhaps be better employed in providing
      those articles which may be kept without waste or
      consumption, and be in readiness when any exigence calls
      them into use. Progress has been made, as will appear by
      papers now communicated, in providing materials for
      seventy-four gun ships, as directed by law.

      How far the authority given by the Legislature for
      procuring and establishing sites for naval purposes, has
      been perfectly understood and pursued in the execution,
      admits of some doubt. A statement of the expenses already
      incurred on that subject is now laid before you. I have, in
      certain cases, suspended or slackened these expenditures,
      that the Legislature might determine whether so many yards
      are necessary as have been contemplated. The works at this
      place are among those permitted to go on; and five of the
      seven frigates directed to be laid up, have been brought
      and laid up here, where, besides the safety of their
      position, they are under the eye of the Executive
      Administration, as well as of its agents; and where
      yourselves also will be guided by your own view in the
      legislative provisions respecting them, which may, from
      time to time, be necessary. They are preserved in such
      condition, as well the vessels as whatever belongs to them,
      as to be at all times ready for sea at a short warning. Two
      others are yet to be laid up, as soon as they shall receive
      the repairs requisite to put them also into sound
      condition. As a superintending officer will be necessary at
      each yard, his duties and emoluments, hitherto fixed by the
      Executive, will be a more proper subject for legislation.
      A communication will also be made of our progress in the
      execution of the law respecting the vessels directed to be
      sold.

      The fortifications of our harbors, more or less advanced,
      present considerations of great difficulty. While some of
      them are on a scale sufficiently proportioned to the
      advantages of their position, to the efficacy of their
      protection, and the importance of the points within it,
      others are so extensive, will cost so much in their first
      erection, so much in their maintenance, and require such a
      force to garrison them, as to make it questionable what is
      best now to be done. A statement of those commenced or
      projected; of the expenses already incurred; and estimates
      of their future cost, as far as can be foreseen, shall be
      laid before you, that you may be enabled to judge whether
      any alteration is necessary in the laws respecting this
      subject.

      Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the
      four pillars of our prosperity, are then most thriving when
      left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from
      casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably
      interposed. If, in the course of your observations or
      inquiries, they should appear to need any aid within the
      limits of our constitutional powers, your sense of their
      importance is a sufficient assurance they will occupy your
      attention. We cannot, indeed, but all feel an anxious
      solicitude for the difficulties under which our carrying
      trade will soon be placed. How far it can be relieved,
      otherwise than by time, is a subject of important
      consideration.

      The Judiciary system of the United States, and especially
      that portion of it recently erected, will, of course,
      present itself to the contemplation of Congress; and that
      they may be able to judge of the proportion which the
      institution bears to the business it has to perform, I have
      caused to be procured from the several States, and now lay
      before Congress, an exact statement of all the causes
      decided since the first establishment of the courts, and of
      those which were depending when additional courts and
      judges were brought in to their aid.

      And while on the Judiciary organization, it will be worthy
      of your consideration whether the protection of the
      inestimable institution of juries has been extended to all
      the cases involving the security of our persons and
      property. Their impartial selection also being essential to
      their value, we ought further to consider whether that is
      sufficiently secured in those States where they are named
      by a marshal depending on Executive will, or designated by
      the court, or by officers dependent on them.

      I cannot omit recommending a revisal of the laws on the
      subject of naturalization. Considering the ordinary chances
      of human life, a denial of citizenship under a residence of
      fourteen years, is a denial to a great proportion of those
      who ask it; and controls a policy pursued, from their first
      settlement, by many of these States, and still believed of
      consequence to their prosperity. And shall we refuse to the
      unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the
      savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving
      in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on
      this globe? The constitution, indeed, has wisely provided
      that, for admission to certain offices of important trust,
      a residence shall be required sufficient to develope
      character and design. But might not the general character
      and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to
      every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his
      life and fortunes permanently with us? with restrictions,
      perhaps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation of our
      flag? an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and loss
      on the genuine citizen, and so much danger to the nation of
      being involved in war, that no endeavor should be spared to
      detect and suppress it.

      These, fellow-citizens, are the matters respecting the
      state of the nation which I have thought of importance to
      be submitted to your consideration at this time. Some
      others of less moment, or not yet ready for communication,
      will be the subject of separate Messages. I am happy in
      this opportunity of committing the arduous affairs of our
      Government to the collected wisdom of the Union. Nothing
      shall be wanting on my part to inform, as far as in my
      power, the legislative judgment, nor to carry that judgment
      into faithful execution. The prudence and temperance of
      your discussions will promote, within your own walls, that
      conciliation which so much befriends rational conclusion;
      and by its example will encourage among our constituents
      that progress of opinion which is tending to unite them in
      object and in will. That all should be satisfied with any
      one order of things, is not to be expected; but I indulge
      the pleasing persuasion that the great body of our citizens
      will cordially concur in honest and disinterested efforts,
      which have for their object to preserve the General and
      State Governments in their constitutional form and
      equilibrium; to maintain peace abroad, and order and
      obedience to the laws at home; to establish principles and
      practices of administration favorable to the security of
      liberty and property, and to reduce expenses to what is
      necessary for the useful purposes of Government.

                          THOMAS JEFFERSON.

      DECEMBER 8, 1801.

The Letter and Message were read, and ordered to be printed for the use
of the Senate.

The papers referred to in the Message were in part read, and the Senate
adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, December 9.

The Senate proceeded to the appointment of a Chaplain to Congress on
their part, and the Rev. Mr. GANTT was elected.


THURSDAY, December 10.

_Resolved_, That James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper to the
Senate, be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ one additional
assistant, and two horses, for the purpose of performing such services
as are usually required of the Doorkeeper to the Senate; and that the
sum of twenty-eight dollars be allowed him weekly for the purpose during
the session, and for twenty days after.


FRIDAY, December 11.

JOHNATHAN MASON, from the State of Massachusetts, and JAMES SHEAFE, from
the State of New Hampshire, severally attended.


MONDAY, December 14.

JAMES HILLHOUSE, from the State of Connecticut, and DWIGHT FOSTER, from
the State of Massachusetts, severally attended.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have elected the Reverend WILLIAM PARKINSON a Chaplain to Congress
on their part.


SATURDAY, December 19.

GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, from the State of New York, attended.

THOMAS SUMTER, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of
South Carolina, in the place of their late Senator, Charles Pinckney,
resigned, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in
the Senate.


MONDAY, December 21.

The credentials of GEORGE LOGAN, appointed a Senator by the Legislature
of the State of Pennsylvania, were presented and read; and the
affirmation prescribed by law was administered by the President.


TUESDAY, December 22.

DAVID STONE, from the State of North Carolina, attended.


MONDAY, December 28.

JOHN EWING COLHOUN, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State
of South Carolina, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his
seat in the Senate.


THURSDAY, December 31.

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE presented the petition of Isaac Zane, stating that he
was made a prisoner at the age of nine years by the Wyandot Indians,
with whom he remained until he became of age; had a family by a woman of
that nation, and a tract of land was assigned him by the said nation, on
a branch of the Great Miami, and which tract of land was ceded to the
United States by a recent treaty with the said Wyandot Indians, and
praying such relief as may be deemed equitable; and the petition was
read, and committed to Messrs. BRECKENRIDGE, TRACY, and OGDEN, to
consider and report thereon.


TUESDAY, January 5, 1802.

Mr. BROWN, from the State of Kentucky, attended.

_Reporting the Debates._

The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter signed Samuel H. Smith,
stating that he was desirous of taking notes of the proceedings of the
Senate, in such manner as to render them correct: Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That any stenographer desirous to take the debates of the
Senate on Legislative business, may be admitted for that purpose, at
such place within the area of the Senate Chamber as the President may
allot:

And, on motion to reconsider the above resolution, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 17, nays 9.

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Breckenridge, Cocke, Dayton,
      Ellery, Dwight Foster, Hillhouse, Howard, Logan, Jonathan
      Mason, Morris, Ogden, Olcott, Sumter, Tracy, White, and
      Wright.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Brown, Chipman, T. Foster,
      Franklin, Jackson, Nicholas, Sheafe, and Stone.

On motion, to amend the resolution, by adding, after the word
stenographer, "He having given bond in the sum of ----, with two
sufficient sureties, in the sum of ---- each, for his good conduct," it
passed in the negative--yeas 10, nays 18, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Chipman, Dayton, Dwight Foster, Hillhouse,
      Howard, Morris, Ogden, Olcott, Sheafe, and Tracy.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Breckenridge, Brown,
      Cocke, Colhoun, Ellery, T. Foster, Franklin, Jackson,
      Logan, S. T. Mason, J. Mason, Nicholas, Stone, Sumter,
      White, and Wright.

On motion, to agree to the original resolution, amended by adding the
words "or note-taker," after the words stenographer, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 16, nays 12, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Breckenridge, Brown,
      Cocke, Colhoun, Ellery, T. Foster, Franklin, Jackson,
      Logan, S. T. Mason, Nicholas, Stone, Sumter, and Wright.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Chipman, Dayton, Dwight Foster, Hillhouse,
      Howard, J. Mason, Morris, Ogden, Olcott, Sheafe, Tracy, and
      White.

So it was _Resolved_, That any stenographer, _or note-taker_, desirous
of taking the debates of the Senate on Legislative business, may be
admitted for that purpose at such place, within the area of the Senate
Chamber, as the President shall allot.[63]


WEDNESDAY, January 6.

_Judiciary System._

Mr. MASON called for the reading of the Message, which was in part read;
when the further reading of the whole document was suspended, and that
part only read, which relates to the Judiciary System.

Upon which Mr. BRECKENRIDGE, from Kentucky, rose, and stated that two
days ago he had given notice that on this day he would submit to the
consideration of the Senate two resolutions respecting the Judiciary
Establishment of the United States. As, however, those resolutions were
not necessarily connected, and as they might be distinctly discussed, he
would at present confine himself to moving the first resolution; without
however foreclosing to himself the right of submitting the second after
the disposition of the first. He, therefore, moved that the act passed
last session _respecting the Judiciary Establishment_ of the United
States be repealed.

[This is the act which created sixteen new circuit judges.]


FRIDAY, January 8.

_Judiciary System._

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate proceeded to the
consideration of the motion made on the 6th instant, to wit:

      "That the act of Congress passed on the 13th day of
      February, 1801, entitled 'An act to provide for the more
      convenient organization of the Courts of the United
      States,' ought to be repealed."[64]

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE then rose and addressed the PRESIDENT, as follows:

It will be expected of me, I presume, sir, as I introduced the
resolution now under consideration, to assign my reasons for wishing a
repeal of this law. This I shall do; and shall endeavor to show:

1. That the law is unnecessary and improper, and was so at its passage;
and

2. That the courts and judges created by it, can and ought to be
abolished.

1st. That the act under consideration was unnecessary and improper, is,
to my mind, no difficult task to prove. No increase of courts or judges
could be necessary or justifiable, unless the existing courts and judges
were incompetent to the prompt and proper discharge of the duties
consigned to them. To hold out a show of litigation, when in fact little
exists, must be impolitic; and to multiply expensive systems, and create
hosts of expensive officers, without having experienced an actual
necessity for them, must be a wanton waste of the public treasure.

The document before us shows that, at the passage of this act, the
existing courts, not only from their number, but from the suits
depending before them, were fully competent to a speedy decision of
those suits. It shows, that on the 15th day of June last, there were
depending in all the circuit courts, (that of Maryland only excepted,
whose docket we have not been furnished with,) one thousand five hundred
and thirty-nine suits. It shows that eight thousand two hundred and
seventy-six suits of every description have come before those courts, in
ten years and upwards. From this it appears, that the annual average
amount of suits has been about eight hundred.

But sundry contingent things have conspired to swell the circuit court
dockets. In Maryland, Virginia, and in all the Southern and
South-western States, a great number of suits have been brought by
British creditors; this species of controversy is nearly at an end.

In Pennsylvania, the docket has been swelled by prosecutions in
consequence of the Western insurrection, by the disturbances in Bucks
and Northampton Counties: and by the sedition act. These I find amount
in that State to two hundred and forty suits.

In Kentucky, non-resident land claimants have gone into the federal
court from a temporary convenience: because, until within a year or two
past, there existed no court of general jurisdiction co-extensive with
the whole State. I find, too, that of the six hundred and odd suits
which have been commenced there, one hundred and ninety-six of them have
been prosecutions under the laws of the United States.

In most of the States there have been prosecutions under the sedition
act. This source of litigation is, I trust, for ever dried up. And,
lastly, in _all_ the States a number of suits have arisen under the
excise law; which source of controversy will, I hope, before this
session terminates, be also dried up.

But this same document discloses another important fact; which is, that
notwithstanding all these untoward and temporary sources of federal
adjudication, the suits in those courts are _decreasing_; for, from the
dockets exhibited (except Kentucky and Tennessee, whose suits are summed
up in the aggregate) it appears, that in 1799 there were one thousand
two hundred and seventy-four, and in 1800 there were six hundred and
eighty-seven suits commenced; showing a decrease of five hundred and
eighty-seven suits.

Could it be necessary then to _increase_ courts when suits were
_decreasing_? Could it be necessary to multiply judges, when their
duties were diminishing? And will I not be justified, therefore, in
affirming, that the law was unnecessary, and that Congress acted under a
mistaken impression, when they multiplied courts and judges at a time
when litigation was actually decreasing?

But, sir, the decrease of business goes a small way in fixing my opinion
on this subject. I am inclined to think, that so far from there having
been a necessity at this time for an increase of courts and judges, that
the time never will arrive when America will stand in need of
thirty-eight federal judges. Look, sir, at your constitution, and see
the judicial power there consigned to federal courts, and seriously ask
yourself can there be fairly extracted from those powers subjects of
litigation sufficient for six supreme and thirty-two inferior court
judges? To me it appears impossible.

The judicial powers given to the federal courts were never intended by
the constitution to embrace, exclusively, subjects of litigation, which
could, with propriety, be left with the State courts. Their jurisdiction
was intended principally to extend to great national and foreign
concerns. Except cases arising under the laws of the United States, I do
not at present recollect but three or four kinds in which their power
extends to subjects of litigation, in which private persons only are
concerned. And can it be possible, that with a jurisdiction embracing so
small a portion of private litigation, in a great part of which the
State courts might, and ought to participate, that we can stand in need
of thirty-eight judges, and expend in judiciary regulations the annual
sum of $137,000?

No other country, whose regulations I have any knowledge of, furnishes
an example of a system so prodigal and extensive. In England, whose
courts are the boast, and said to be the security of the rights of the
nation, every man knows there are but twelve judges and three principal
courts. These courts embrace, in their original or appellate
jurisdiction, almost the whole circle of human concerns.

The King's Bench and Common Pleas, which consist of four judges each,
entertain all the common law suits of 40_s._ and upwards, originating
among nine millions of the most commercial people in the world. They
moreover revise the proceedings of not only all the petty courts of
record in the kingdom, even down to the courts of piepoudre, but also of
the Court of King's Bench in Ireland; and these supreme courts, after
centuries of experiment, are found to be fully competent to _all_ the
business of the kingdom.

I will now inquire into the power of Congress to put down these
additional courts and judges.

First, as to the courts, Congress are empowered by the constitution
"from time to time, to ordain and establish inferior courts." The act
now under consideration, is a legislative construction of this clause
in the constitution, that Congress may abolish as well as create these
judicial officers; because it does expressly, in the twenty-seventh
section of the act, abolish the then existing inferior courts, for the
purpose of making way for the present. This construction, I contend, is
correct; but it is equally pertinent to my object, whether it be or be
not. If it be correct, then the present inferior courts may be abolished
as constitutionally as the last; if it be not, then the law for
abolishing the former courts, and, establishing the present, was
unconstitutional, and consequently repealable.

But independent of this legislative construction, on which I do not
found my opinion, nor mean to rely my argument, there is little doubt
indeed, in my mind, as to the power of Congress on this law. The first
section of the third article vests the judicial power of the United
States in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress may,
from time to time, ordain and establish. By this clause Congress _may_,
from time to time, establish inferior courts; but it is clearly a
discretionary power, and they _may not_ establish them. The language of
the constitution is very different when regulations are not left
discretional. For example, "The trial," says the constitution, "of all
crimes '(except in cases of impeachment) shall be by jury:
representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned according to
numbers. All revenue bills shall originate in the House of
Representatives,'" &c. It would, therefore, in my opinion, be a
perversion, not only of language, but of intellect, to say, that
although Congress may, from time to time, establish inferior courts,
yet, when established, that they shall not be abolished by a subsequent
Congress possessing equal powers. It would be a paradox in legislation.

2d. As to the judges. The Judiciary Department is so constructed as to
be sufficiently secured against the improper influence of either the
Executive or Legislative Departments. The courts were organized and
established by the Legislature, and the Executive creates the judges.
Being thus organized, the constitution affords the proper checks to
secure their honesty and independence in office. It declares they shall
not be removed from office during good behavior; nor their salaries
diminished during their continuance in office. From this it results,
that a judge, after his appointment, is totally out of the power of the
President, and his salary secured against legislative diminution, during
his continuance in office. The first of these checks, which protects a
judge in his office during good behavior, applies to the President only,
who would otherwise have possessed the power of removing him, like all
other officers, at pleasure; and the other check, forbidding a
diminution of their salaries, applies to the Legislature only. They are
two separate and distinct checks, furnished by the constitution against
two distinct departments of the Government; and they are the only ones
which are or ought to have been furnished on the subject.

But because the constitution declares that a judge shall hold his office
during good behavior, can it be tortured to mean, that he shall hold his
office after it is abolished? Can it mean, that his tenure should be
limited by behaving well in an office which did not exist? Can it mean
that an office may exist, although its duties are extinct? Can it mean,
in short, that the shadow, to wit, the judge, can remain, when the
substance, to wit, the office, is removed? It must have intended all
these absurdities, or it must admit a construction which will avoid
them.

The construction obviously is, that a judge should hold an existing
office, so long as he did his duty in that office; and not that he
should hold an office that did not exist, and perform duties not
provided by law. Had the construction which I contend against been
contemplated by those who framed the constitution, it would have been
necessary to have declared, explicitly, that the judges should hold
their offices and their salaries during good behavior.

Let me not be told, sir, that the salaries in the present case are
inconsiderable, and ought not to be withheld; and that the doctrine is
not a dangerous one. I answer, it is the principle I contend against;
and if it is heterodox for one dollar, it is equally so for a million.
But I contend the principle, if once admitted, may be extended to
destructive lengths. Suppose it should hereafter happen, that those in
power should combine to provide handsomely for their friends, could any
way so plain, easy, and effectual, present itself, as by creating
courts, and filling them with those friends? Might not sixty as well as
sixteen, with salaries of twenty thousand, instead of two thousand
dollars, be provided for in this way?

There is another difficulty under this construction still to encounter,
and which also grows out of the constitution: By the constitution, a new
State may be formed by the junction of two or more States, with their
assent and that of Congress. If this doctrine, once a judge and always a
judge, be correct, what would you do in such an event, with the district
judges of the States who formed that junction? Both would be
unnecessary, and you would have, in a single State, two judges of equal
and concurrent jurisdiction; or one a real judge, with an office, and
another a quasi judge, without an office. The States also forming such
junction, would be equally embarrassed with their State judges; for the
same construction would be equally applicable to them.

Upon this construction, also, an infallibility is predicated, which it
would be arrogance in any human institution to assume, and which goes to
cut up legislation by the roots. We would be debarred from that which is
indulged to us from a higher source, and on subjects of higher concern
than legislation; I mean a retraction from and correction of our
errors. On all other subjects of legislation we are allowed, it seems,
to change our minds, except on judiciary subjects, which, of all others,
are the most complex and difficult. I appeal to our own statute book to
prove this difficulty: for in ten years Congress have passed no less
than twenty-six laws on this subject.

Mr. J. MASON, of Massachusetts, said, it would be agreed on all hands
that this was one of the most important questions that ever came before
a Legislature. Were he not of this opinion he would not have risen to
offer his sentiments. But he felt so deep an interest in the question,
and from the respect which he entertained for the district of country he
represented, he deemed it his duty to meet the subject, and not be
satisfied with giving to it his silent negative.

The constitution, in the construction of the Executive, Legislative, and
Judiciary Departments, had assigned to each a different tenure. The
President was chosen for four years; the Senate for six years, subject
to a prescribed rotation biennially; the House of Representatives for
two years; and the Judiciary during good behavior. It says to the
President, at the expiration of every four years, you shall revert to
the character of a private citizen, however splendid your talents or
conspicuous your virtue. Why? Because you have assigned to you powers
which it is dangerous to exercise. You have the power of creating
offices and officers. You have prerogatives. The temptation to an abuse
of your power is great. Such has been the uniform experience of ages.
The constitution holds the same language to the Senate and House of
Representatives: It says, it is necessary for the good of society that
you also should revert at short periods to the mass of the people,
because to you are consigned the most important duties of Government,
and because you hold the purse-strings of the nation.

To the Judiciary: What is the language applied to them? The judges are
not appointed for two, four, or any given number of years; but they hold
their appointments for life, unless they misbehave themselves. Why? For
this reason: They are not the depositaries of the high prerogatives of
Government. They neither appoint to office, nor hold the purse-strings
of the country, nor legislate for it. They depend entirely upon their
talents, which is all they have to recommend them. They cannot,
therefore, be disposed to pervert their power to improper purposes. What
are their duties? To expound and apply the laws. To do this with
fidelity and skill, requires a length of time. The requisite knowledge
is not to be procured in a day. These are the plain and strong reasons
which must strike every mind, for the different tenure by which the
judges hold their offices, and they are such as will eternally endure
wherever liberty exists.

On examination, it will be found that the people, in forming their
constitution, meant to make the judges as independent of the
Legislature as of the Executive. Because the duties which they have to
perform, call upon them to expound not only the laws, but the
constitution also; in which is involved the power of checking the
Legislature in case it should pass any laws in violation of the
constitution. For this reason it was more important that the judges in
this country should be placed beyond the control of the Legislature,
than in other countries where no such power attaches to them.

The constitution says: "The Judicial power of the United States shall be
vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress
may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the
Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good
behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a
compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
office."

Thus it says, "the judges _shall hold_ their offices during good
behavior." How can this direction of the constitution be complied with,
if the Legislature shall, from session to session, repeal the law under
which the office is held, and _remove the office_? He did not conceive
that any words, which human ingenuity could devise, could more
completely get over the remarks that had been made by the gentleman from
Kentucky. But that gentleman says, that this provision of the
constitution applies exclusively to the President. He considers it as
made to supersede the powers of the President to remove the judges. But
could this have been the contemplation of the framers of the
constitution, when even the right of the President to remove officers at
pleasure, was a matter of great doubt, and had divided in opinion our
most enlightened citizens. Not that he stated this circumstance because
he had doubts. He thought the President ought to have the right; but it
did not emanate from the constitution; was not expressly found in the
constitution, but sprang from Legislative construction.

Besides, if Congress have the right to repeal the whole of the law, they
must possess the right to repeal a section of it. If so, they may repeal
the law so far as it applies to a particular district, and thus get rid
of an obnoxious judge. They may remove his office from him. Would it not
be absurd still to say, that the removed judge held his office during
good behavior?

The constitution says: "The judges shall, at stated times, receive for
their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during
their continuance in office." Why this provision? Why guard against the
power to deprive the judges of their pay in a diminution of it, and not
provide against what was more important, their existence?

Still, if the gentlemen would not agree with him as to the
unconstitutionality of the measure proposed, he would ask, was it
expedient? Were there not great doubts existing throughout the United
States? Ought not each gentleman to say, though I may have no doubts or
hesitancy, are not a large portion of our citizens of opinion that it
would violate the constitution? If this diversity of sentiment exists,
ought not the evils under the judiciary law to be very great before we
touch it? Ought we not to aim at harmonizing, instead of dividing our
citizens? Was not the constitution a sacred instrument; an instrument
ever to be approached with reverence; an instrument which ought not
lightly to be drawn from its hallowed retreat, and subjected to the flux
and reflux of passion? But where is the evil complained of? This system
was established only last session; scarcely had it been yet originated;
scarcely had we tried it on its very threshold; where then the necessity
of being so pointed, as to destroy a system scarcely formed three days
ago? Does not this manifest precipitation? Will it not manifest more
magnanimity, more rationality, to abide by it until we try it; instead
of taking up a pen and dashing it out of existence?

Mr. MORRIS, of New York.--Mr. President, I am so very unfortunate, that
the arguments in favor of the motion have confirmed my opinion that the
law to which it refers ought not to be repealed. The honorable mover has
rested his proposition on two grounds:

1st. That the judiciary law passed last session is unnecessary; and,

2dly. That we have a right to repeal it, and ought to exercise that
right.

Gentlemen say, recur to the ancient system. What is the ancient system?
Six judges of the Supreme Court to ride the circuit of America twice a
year, and sit twice a year at the seat of Government. Without inquiring
into the accuracy of a statement made by the gentleman respecting the
courts of England, in which, I apprehend, he will find himself deceived,
let me ask what would be the effects of the old system here? Cast an eye
over the extent of our country, and a moment's consideration will show
that the First Magistrate, in selecting a character for the bench, must
seek less the learning of a judge than the agility of a post-boy. Can it
be possible that men advanced in years, (for such alone can have the
maturity of judgment fitting for the office;) that men educated in the
closet--men who, from their habits of life, must have more strength of
mind than of body; is it, I say, possible that such men can be running
from one end of the continent to the other? Or, if they could, can they
find time to hear and decide causes? I have been told by men of eminence
on the bench, that they could not hold their offices under the old
arrangement.

What is the present system? You have added to the old judges seven
district and sixteen circuit judges. What will be the effect of the
desired repeal? Will it not be a declaration to the remaining judges
that they hold their offices subject to your will and pleasure? And
what will be the result of this? It will be, that the check established
by the constitution, wished for by the people, and necessary in every
contemplation of common sense, is destroyed. It had been said, and
truly, too, that Governments are made to provide against the follies and
vices of men. For to suppose that Governments rest upon reason is a
pitiful solecism. If mankind were reasonable, they would want no
Government. Hence, checks are required in the distribution of the power
among those who are to exercise it for the benefit of the people. Did
the people of America vest all power in the Legislature? No; they had
vested in the judges a check intended to be efficient--a check of the
first necessity, to prevent an invasion of the constitution by
unconstitutional laws--a check which might prevent any faction from
intimidating or annihilating the tribunals themselves.

On this ground, said Mr. MORRIS, I stand to arrest the victory meditated
over the constitution of my country; a victory meditated by those who
wish to prostrate that constitution for the furtherance of their own
ambitious views. Not of him who had recommended this measure, nor of
those who now urge it; for, on his uprightness and their uprightness, I
have the fullest reliance; but of those in the background who have
further and higher objects. These troops that protect the outworks are
to be first dismissed. Those posts which present the strongest barriers
are first to be taken, and then the constitution becomes an easy prey.

Let us then, secondly, consider whether we have constitutionally a power
to repeal this law. [Here Mr. MORRIS quoted the third article and first
section of the constitution.] I have heard a verbal criticism about the
words _shall_ and _may_, which appeared the more unnecessary to me, as
the same word, _shall_, is applied to both members of the section. For
it says: "the judicial power, &c. _shall_ be vested in one Supreme Court
and such inferior courts as the Congress _may_, from time to time,
ordain and establish." The Legislature, therefore, had, without doubt,
the right of determining, in the first instance, what inferior courts
should be established; but when established, the words are imperative, a
part of the judicial power shall vest in them. And "the judges shall
hold their offices during good behavior." They shall receive a
compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
office. Therefore, whether the remarks be applied to the tenure of
office, or the quantum of compensation, the constitution is equally
imperative. After this exposition, gentlemen are welcome to any
advantage to be derived from the criticism on _shall_ and _may_.


MONDAY, January 11.

_Apportionment Bill._

The Apportionment bill, as received from the House of Representatives,
was taken up. This bill fixes the ratio of representation at one member
for every 33,000 persons in each State.

Mr. WELLS moved to strike out 33,000, his object being to introduce
30,000, for which he assigned his reasons at some length.

On this motion a debate of some length ensued, in which the provisions
of the bill as they stood were supported by Messrs. JACKSON, MASON,
WRIGHT, and COCKE; and opposed by Messrs. WELLS and HILLHOUSE.

Mr. WHITE, of Delaware.--Believing as I do, sir, that the minds of
gentlemen on this floor are thoroughly made up as to the present
subject, and that any observations now to be offered will not influence
a single vote, but merely occupy the time of the Senate to no useful
purpose, I shall ask your indulgence but a few moments. I cannot, sir,
sit quietly and see this bill reported by your committee, meditating as
it certainly does a manifest injury to the State I have the honor in
part to represent, pass into a law, without doing more than oppose to it
a silent negative; without holding up my voice and protesting most
solemnly against the extreme injustice of the measure. If, sir, this
bill passes in its present shape, there will be left in the State of
Delaware twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and eleven people
unrepresented in the popular branch of their Legislature. Gentlemen may
say, that this is only a fraction, and that in a general apportionment
of representation, fractional numbers are unavoidable. Sir, I
acknowledge it is only a fraction, but it is a fraction that includes
one-half the population of that State, and amounts, even upon the
present contemplated plan, to within four thousand of the number
sufficient to gain another Representative. Sir, twenty-eight or thirty
thousand would, to one of the large States, be an inconsiderable
fraction. Apportion that number, for instance, among the twenty-one
Representatives from Virginia, and you give to each member but a
fraction of about thirteen hundred; whereas from Delaware, there will be
but one representative, and over and above his legal number a fraction
of near twenty-nine thousand people unrepresented. Is this fair, sir? Is
this equitable? I ask, gentlemen, is it not unfriendly and wrongful? And
can it be possible, sir, that the transcendent omnipotence of a majority
have fated, if I may use the expression, this injustice upon a sister
State? Suppose, sir, Delaware to have but one Representative and
Virginia twenty, a fraction of five thousand to the former is equal to a
redundant number of one hundred thousand to the latter; or take, sir,
the present case, and you will find that the fraction of twenty-nine
thousand in the State of Delaware, apportioned upon the representation,
is at least equal to a redundant number in the State of Virginia of
three hundred thousand. If, sir, the divisor is fixed at thirty
thousand, Delaware will have two Representatives; her weight, then, in
the other House, will, in relation to Virginia, be as one to twelve, but
if she is compelled to submit to the divisor of thirty-three thousand,
you allow her but one Representative; you deny her nearly one-half her
rightful influence, and place her on the floor of the House of
Representatives in a relative situation toward Virginia, as one to
twenty-one. Sir, an additional Representative to any of the larger
States is not of the same consequence as another would be to Delaware.
To Virginia, for instance, one is but the twentieth part of her force,
to Delaware it would be one-half her force. Gentlemen may say that
Delaware is the smallest State; but let it be remembered, sir, that her
rights are equally sacred with those of the largest States; and although
her citizens are not so numerous, yet, sir, their State sovereignty and
other constitutional rights are quite as dear and valuable to them, as
the blessing can be to any other people; and, let me add, sir, she is
among the oldest States; her history travels back through the bloody
scenes of your Revolution; she dates her era at your Declaration of
Independence, and I am proud to say, and can do so without detracting
from her neighbors, in proportion to her population, her resources, and
extent, during the severe contest for American liberty, she contributed,
in blood and treasure, as freely to its support and permanent
establishment, as any State in the Union.

Sir, the doctrine urged by some gentlemen that the divisor of thirty
thousand will increase the House of Representatives to a body too large
and unwieldy for the convenient and ordinary purposes of business, seems
to me totally without foundation. The observation and experience of
every man must be sufficient at once to satisfy him that this cannot be
the consequence; we have before our eyes, sir, examples that prove
directly the reverse. This divisor will give to your House of
Representatives but one hundred and fifty-seven members; the State of
Virginia has in the popular branch of her Legislature one hundred and
eighty members, and we have not been told that it is too numerous. The
British House of Commons, before the union with Ireland, consisted of
about five hundred and fifty members, and we heard no complaint of the
numbers; on the contrary, sir, the nation wished a fuller
representation; and it is from that House, too, sir, that, according to
this logic, must be so extremely riotous and disorderly, we have drawn
most of the rules that govern the proceedings of this honorable body.

Again, sir, the nature and spirit of your Government requires a full
representation in the Legislature. It is a Government that must depend
alone for its support upon the affections of the people; and the best
security for their affections is to extend to them, upon as large a
scale as comports with the public safety, the freedom of choice, and
right of representation. In so extensive a country as this, many parts
of which are thinly inhabited, and the election districts consequently
including vast tracts of territory, it must often happen that the
electors are entirely unacquainted with the person for whom they vote;
but if you increase the representation, you reduce the size of the
election districts; you bring the candidate within the very neighborhood
of the electors; they see him, they know him; they are better enabled to
estimate truly his character, and judge of his capacity and disposition
to serve them. This, sir, will secure in a great degree, the constituent
from imposition, and attach to the Representative a higher and more
immediate responsibility; it will inspire the people with confidence in
your Government, and induce them more cheerfully to acquiesce in your
laws. But, above all, sir, the divisor of thirty thousand leaves
throughout the United States a less aggregate of unrepresented fractions
than any divisor you can take; less, permit me to say, sir, by one
hundred and sixteen thousand, than the one contemplated in the bill; and
I am sure gentlemen on all sides of the House wish the country as fairly
represented as possible. To my mind this is a most conclusive argument
in favor of the divisor of thirty thousand.

The question was now taken on the motion to strike out 33,000, and
lost--ayes 11, noes 15.

Mr. MORRIS then moved, and Mr. TRACY seconded the motion to add, after
"one representative for every 33,000," the words "and one representative
for every fractional number of 27,000 persons." The number 27,000 was
used to avoid a violation of the constitution, which prohibits the
allotting to each State more representatives than one for every 30,000.
Thus, in the case of Delaware, the ratio being 33,000, Delaware would be
entitled to one member for 33,000, and one for the fraction of 27,000:
both which numbers would amount to 60,000; which last number entitled a
State to two members without violating the constitution. This motion was
opposed by Messrs. WRIGHT and ANDERSON, and was lost--ayes 10, noes 15.

On the question to agree to the final passage of this bill, it was
determined in the affirmative--yeas 23, nays 5, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Breckenridge, Brown,
      Chipman, Cocke, Colhoun, Dayton, Ellery, T. Foster, Dwight
      Foster, Franklin, Howard, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason, J.
      Mason, Morris, Nicholas, Sheafe, Stone, Sumter, and Wright.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Hillhouse, Olcott, Tracy, Wells, and White.

The bill was then read a third time, and passed.


TUESDAY, January 12

_Judiciary System._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made on the 6th
instant, "That the act of Congress passed on the 13th day of February,
1801, entitled 'An act to provide for the more convenient organization
of the Courts of the United States,' ought to be repealed."

Mr. JACKSON, of Georgia.--I rise with an impression of awe on the
present question; for we must tread on constitutional ground, which
should not be lightly touched on, nor too hastily decided. Every step we
take ought to be well examined, and our minds convinced before we give
that vote which cannot be recalled, and which will fix a principle on
Legislative construction, which, perhaps, will prevail as long as we
remain a nation.

In the early stage of this discussion, I had almost determined to say
nothing, and am at present determined not to say much; but a
justification of the vote I shall give, has impelled me to offer my
reasons for it to the State I represent; and I have made up my mind,
decidedly, to vote for the resolution before you, if I cannot be
otherwise convinced.

We have been asked, if we are afraid of having an army of judges? For
myself, I am more afraid of an army of judges, under the patronage of
the President, than of an army of soldiers. The former can do us more
harm. They may deprive us of our liberties, if attached to the
Executive, from their decisions; and from the tenure of office contended
for, we cannot remove them; while the soldier, however he may act, is
enlisted, or if not enlisted, only subsisted for two years; whilst the
judge is enlisted for life, for his salary cannot be taken from him.
[See 12th division, 8th Section, 1st Art. Constitution.] Sir, it is said
these evils will not happen. But what security have we for the truth of
the declaration? Have we not seen sedition laws? Have we not heard
judges crying out through the land sedition! and asking those whose duty
it was to inquire, is there no sedition here? It is true, the sedition
law had expired with the last Administration, and he trusted it would
not exist, or at least be acted on, under the virtuous Jefferson. But
hereafter, if it should exist, your judges, under the cry of sedition
and political heresy, may place half your citizens in irons. I thank
God, that no such law now exists, or is likely to exist. I thank God,
that we are not now under the influence of an intolerant clergy, as is
evident from their abuse of the President; and that we are not under
dread of the patronage of judges, is manifest, from their attack on the
Secretary of State. And I trust, that we shall long keep this patronage
off, by not sanctioning the religious persecution of the clergy on the
one hand, nor the political violence of the judges on the other.

But, upon the principles of gentlemen, the law which creates a judge
cannot be touched. The moment it is passed, it exists to the end of
time. What is the implication of this doctrine? To alter or amend what
may greatly require alteration or amendment, it is necessary to return
to the creator, and to inquire what this creator is. My principle is,
that the creator is the people themselves; that very people of the
United States whom the gentleman from New York had declared ourselves
to be the guardians of, to save the people themselves from their
greatest enemies; and to save whom from destroying themselves he had
invoked this House. Good God! is it possible that I have heard such a
sentiment in this body? Rather should I have expected to have heard it
sounded from the despots of Turkey, or the deserts of Siberia, than to
have heard it uttered by an enlightened legislator of a free country,
and on this floor.

I am clearly, therefore, of opinion, that if the power to alter the
Judiciary system vests not here, it vests nowhere. It follows, from the
ideas of gentlemen, that we must submit to all the evils of the present
system, though it should exhibit all the horrors of the Inquisition.

But, said Mr. J., gentlemen say the United States embrace a vast extent
of territory, from fifteen to seventeen thousand miles in length. What
is the inevitable deduction to be drawn from this fact? Why, that a
system which is to apply to this extent of country, embracing different
laws and different habits, will require frequent alterations: whereas,
if we are tied down to a system of inferior tribunals once formed, we
cannot even touch the plan of the Judicial system of the little District
of Columbia. Nor can we touch the inferior jurisdictions in the
North-western Territory, nor in the Mississippi Territory, in both of
which the systems were acknowledged to be adapted only to present
circumstances, and in the last of which the rights of Georgia were
implicated. It follows, that whatever these rights may be, the system is
sacred; and, as to the Mississippi Territory, if grounded on this
doctrine, notwithstanding the claim of Georgia, her jurisdiction is
totally lost. To revert to the sedition law. If the doctrine supported
now were true, then, had the sedition law been incorporated as a system
by itself, an inferior tribunal, and officers been attached to it, would
it have been perpetually tacked to the constitution? That law under
which so many of our citizens have been imprisoned for writings and
speakings; and one, among others, for wishing that the wadding of a gun
had been lodged in a certain Presidential part.

The gentleman had dwelt on the inconveniences and evils of the old
system, and had particularly condemned that part of it, which, as he
termed it, had converted the judges into post-boys. But I will appeal to
the gentleman, if in England, where so much more business is done, there
are more than twelve judges, and whether those judges do not ride the
circuit? And why shall our judges not ride the circuits? Shall we have
six judges sitting here to decide cases which require a knowledge of the
laws, the morals, the habits, the state of the property of the several
States? Would not this knowledge be much better obtained by their riding
the circuits, and in the States themselves, making themselves acquainted
with whatever relates to them, and the cases of appeals to come before
them? It has been remarked by a celebrated writer on the English
Constitution, that one of the greatest political evils that could befall
a people, was the existence of large judiciary bodies. To illustrate his
ideas, he had instanced the Parliaments of France. If the spirit which
last session gave existence to sixteen new judges continued, who could
say by what number they would be limited? They might indeed soon become,
what they had been likened to, an army of judges.

I do not wish to be severe in my remarks on the conduct of the late
Administration. I admire the private character of Mr. Adams. But I do
believe the succession of his political acts tended ultimately to
accumulate in, and attach all powers to, a particular person or favorite
family.

If I wished to bestow on Mr. Jefferson this mass of patronage, which I
contend this horde of officers bestows, I should be in favor of the bill
that it is now moved to repeal; but, as a political person, I am no more
for Thomas Jefferson than for John Adams. When he acts, according to my
opinion, right, I will support him; when wrong, oppose him; and I trust
a majority on this floor will act in the same way.

Mr. TRACY, of Connecticut.--Feeble as I am, I have thought it my duty to
offer my sentiments on this subject. Owing to severity of indisposition,
I have not been in my place, nor have I heard any of the discussion.
This circumstance will be my apology, if, in the remarks I shall make,
repetitions shall occur on the one hand, and apparent inattention to
arguments on the other.

Having been a member of this Government during several years, and being
impressed with the difficulties attending the formation of a judiciary
system, I have thought proper to give a concise history of Legislative
proceedings on this important subject. Permit me to say, sir, that the
first institution of such a system must be an experiment. It is
impossible to ascertain, until tried, the effects of a system
co-extensive with the vast territory of the United States, and which
ought to be adapted to the different laws and habits of the different
States.

Soon after the first law was enacted, as early as the year 1793, and I
believe sooner, complaints were made of the system of circuit courts.
The Union then being divided into three circuits, and two of the six
judges were obliged to attend each court, if one judge failed, all the
business of course was continued to the next term. Judges complained of
the distance they had to travel, and suitors and lawyers complained of
delays. In 1793, if my memory is correct, the law passed allowing one
judge to attend with the district judge in each district, with some
other modifications not important in the present view of the subject.
If, by reason of distance, badness of roads, sickness, or any other
accident, this one judge failed of attendance, or if he and the district
judge differed on any point, a delay was occasioned. If the same judge
attended the same circuit at the next term, another delay, and so on,
till experience taught us, that some alteration in the system was
requisite. It will be recollected, that the judges had to travel over
this extensive country twice in each year, and to encounter the extremes
of both heat and cold. Of this they complained; but this was not all;
the business was not done.

Although this subject had been recommended before, and committees had
contemplated a revision and alteration of the system, I do not remember
that a bill had ever been presented to either House of Congress until
1799. In that session, a bill was reported similar in its features to
the act which passed last session. It might have been acted upon in the
House of Representatives; of this, however, I am not confident; but I
recollect it was printed, and the members of both Houses had it before
them; and at the last session, with some alterations and amendments, it
was enacted into a law. I believe all parties wished for a revision and
amendment of the system, in respect to circuit courts; the difference of
opinion was principally this: some supposed an increase of the Judges of
the Supreme Court to such a number as would render the duties of the
circuit practicable for them, and provide for the completion of
business, would be the best amendment; the others thought the law, as it
passed, was preferable.

I acknowledge, that in deliberating upon this subject, we always assumed
the principle, that the establishment of courts was important to protect
the rights of the people; we did not fear an army of judges, as has been
hinted by the gentleman last up, (Mr. JACKSON.) In this opinion we might
be mistaken, but we were honest in our professions. Although some
believed, that more of the business of the United States might be
confided to the State courts; yet it is not within my recollection, that
the question was considered, in any measure; a party question. I am
confident, that at the session of 1799, and for a long time before that,
the friends of this law, which eventually passed last winter, could not,
nor did not, contemplate any change of administration. A revision of the
system was long a subject of deliberation; we believed an increase of
circuit judges, to the number requisite to perform the duties, would be
an inconvenient increase of the Supreme Court; and though it was
desirable for the Judges of the Supreme Court to see the people and be
seen of them, yet the preference was given to the system now proposed to
be repealed. We supposed it would be an evil to increase the number of
Judges of the Supreme Court to thirteen, fifteen, or seventeen. A court
which is to act together, should not be numerous; on this subject, all
men have agreed; here may be danger of an "army of judges," as the
gentleman says; for although in Great Britain the twelve judges are
sometimes called to give an opinion, yet no man will feel equal
confidence in a tribunal of judges for the business of a court,
consisting of many as of few; from three to five, the good sense and
experience of all nations, has declared to be about the proper number;
and we thought it conducive to the general good, to establish tribunals
in such manner as to carry justice to the door of every man.

Is this system so very vicious, that it deserves nothing but abhorrence
and destruction? It costs us a little more than thirty thousand dollars,
and by it the number of circuit judges is increased to sixteen; and by
it likewise is contemplated reducing the number of supreme judges to
five, when it can constitutionally be done. Is the expense an object,
when by that expense, we extend the jurisdiction of a court over this
vastly extensive, growing country, and carry law and protection to every
man? This country is in a singular condition; a great tract of unsettled
lands is peopling with rapidity, and numerous emigrations increase our
population far beyond its natural increase; is it not of importance that
courts should be located among them, early, to correct the restless
spirit which is frequent in new and scattered settlements? And are not
the emigrations composed of such as require the prompt assistance of the
law, to preserve among them regularity? Punishment, to us, and to all
good men, should be a strange work; but to prevent crimes, is the work
of a God. I speak to gentlemen, who have many of them graced the judge's
bench, and adorned the professional robe they have worn, and am
therefore not obliged to be particular that I may be understood; a word
to the wise will be sufficient. A judiciary, in a national point of
view, is absolutely necessary, and an extension of it to every national
purpose, is equally necessary. To depend upon State courts, not under
obligations, nor amenable to you, besides having as much business
allotted to them by the respective States as they can accomplish, and
depending, upon them, and not on us, for existence--will require only to
be mentioned, to be exploded. Locating your judges in various parts of
the country, by them promulgating the national laws, which it is well
known has been a subject of great difficulty, and giving them daily
opportunity of mixing with people, not well disposed to order and law;
may prevent disorders and insurrections, and save millions of expense,
which pecuniary saving will be the least of the important events arising
from such a system.

But there is another objection to the repeal of the judiciary law, which
in my mind is conclusive: I mean the letter and spirit of the
constitution.

In the formation of every Government, in which the people have a share
in its administration, some established and indisputable principles must
be adopted. In our Government, the formation of a Legislative,
Executive, and Judiciary power, is one of the incontrovertible
principles; and that each should be independent of the other, so far as
human frailty will permit, is equally incontrovertible. Will it be
expected, that I should quote Sidney, De Lolme, Montesquieu, and a host
of elementary writers, to prove this assertion? There is, probably, no
conflict of opinion upon this subject. When we look into our
constitution of Government, we shall find, in every part of it, a close
and undeviating attention to this principle. Our particular form is
singular in its requirements; that full force and operation be given to
this all-important principle. Our powers are limited, many acts of
sovereignty are prohibited to the National Government, and retained by
the States; and many restraints are imposed upon State sovereignty. If
either, by accident or design, should exceed its powers, there is the
utmost necessity that some timely checks, equal to every exigency,
should be interposed. The Judiciary is established by the constitution
for that valuable purpose.

In the British Government, the Legislature is omnipotent to every
legislative effect, and is a perpetual convention for almost every
constitutional purpose. Hence it is easy to discern the different parts
which must be assigned to the Judiciary in the two kinds of government.
In England, the Executive has the most extensive powers; the sword or
the military force; the right of making war, and in effect the command
of all the wealth of the nation, with an unqualified veto to every
legislative act. It is, therefore, rational for that nation to preserve
their judiciary completely independent of their Sovereign. In the United
States, the caution must be applied to the existing danger; the
Judiciary are to be a check on the Executive, but most emphatically to
the Legislature of the Union, and those of the several States. What
security is there to an individual, if the Legislature of the Union, or
any particular State, should pass a law, making any of his transactions
criminal which took place anterior to the date of the law? None in the
world, but by an appeal to the Judiciary of the United States, where he
will obtain a decision that the law itself is unconstitutional and void,
or by a resort to revolutionary principles, and exciting a civil war.
With a view to those principles, and knowing that the framers of our
constitution were fully possessed of them, let us examine the instrument
itself. Article third, section first: "The judicial power of the United
States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts
as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The
judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their
offices during good behavior; and shall, at stated times, receive for
their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during
their continuance in office." Are there words in the English language
more explicit? Is there any condition annexed to the judge's tenure of
office, other than good behavior? Of whom shall your judges be
independent? We are led to an erroneous decision on this, as well as
many other governmental subjects, by constantly recurring to Great
Britain. That their courts should be independent of their Sovereign, is
an important object; he is the fountain of honor and power, and can do
no wrong; our President, at least for several years past, has been
considered as the fountain of dishonor and weakness, and if there was
any maxim upon the subject, it was that he could do no right. Of course
the great object of the independence of the Judiciary must here have
reference not only to our Executive, but our Legislature. The
Legislature with us is the fountain of power. No person will say that
the Judges of the Supreme Court can be removed, unless by impeachment
and conviction of misbehavior; but the judges of the inferior courts, as
soon as ordained and established, are placed upon precisely the same
grounds of independence with the Judges of the Supreme Court. Congress
may take their own time to ordain and establish, but the instant that is
done, all the rights of independence attach to them.

If this reasoning is correct, can you repeal a law establishing an
inferior court, under the constitution? Will it be said, that although
you cannot remove the judge from office, yet you can remove his office
from him? Is murder prohibited, and may you shut a man up, and deprive
him of sustenance, till he dies, and this not be denominated murder? The
danger in our Government is, and always will be, that the Legislative
body will become restive, and, perhaps, unintentionally break down the
barriers of our constitution. It is incidental to man, and a part of our
imperfections, to believe that power may be safely lodged in our hands.
We have the wealth of the nation at command, and are invested with
almost irresistible strength; the Judiciary has neither force nor wealth
to protect itself. That we can, with propriety, modify our judiciary
system, so that we always leave the Judges independent, is a correct and
reasonable position; but if we can, by repealing a law, remove them,
they are in the worst state of dependence.


WEDNESDAY, January 13.

_The Judiciary System._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made on the 6th inst.
that the act of Congress passed on the 13th day of February, 1801,
entitled "An act to provide for the more convenient organization of the
Courts of the United States," ought to be repealed.

Mr. MASON, of Virginia.--I feel some degree of embarrassment in offering
my sentiments on a subject so fully and so ably discussed. I believe
that the ground taken by my friend from Kentucky has not been shaken by
any arguments urged in opposition to the resolution on the table. Yet as
some observations have been made, calculated to excite sensibility, not
here, but abroad; as they appear to have been made with a view to that
end; and as an alarm has been attempted to be excited on constitutional
ground, I think the observations ought not to go unnoticed.

I agree with gentlemen, that it is important, in a well-regulated
government, that the judicial department should be independent. But I
have never been among those who have carried this idea to the extent
which seems at this day to be fashionable. Though of opinion that each
department ought to discharge its proper duties free from the fear of
the others, yet I have never believed that they ought to be independent
of the nation itself. Much less have I believed it proper, or that our
constitution authorizes our courts of justice to control the other
departments of the Government.

All the departments of a popular government must depend, in some degree,
on popular opinion. None can exist without the affections of the people,
and if either be placed in such a situation as to be independent of the
nation, it will soon lose that affection which is essential to its
durable existence.

Without, however, going into an inquiry of what kind of organization is
most fit for our tribunals; without inquiring into the fitness of making
the judges independent for life, I am willing to enter into a
consideration, not of what ought to be, but of what is. Whatever opinion
I may individually entertain of the provisions of the constitution
relative to the Judiciary, sitting here under that constitution, I am
bound to observe it as the charter under which we are assembled.

When I view the provisions of the constitution on this subject, I
observe a clear distinction between the Supreme Court and other courts.
I am sensible that when we come to make verbal criticisms, any gentleman
of a sportive imagination may amuse our fancies by a play upon words.
But this is not the way to get rid of a genuine construction of the
constitution. With regard to the institution of the Supreme Court, the
words are imperative; while, with regard to inferior tribunals, they are
discretionary. The first shall, the last may be established. And surely
we are to infer from the wise sages that formed that constitution, that
nothing was introduced into it in vain. Not only sentences, but words,
and even points, elucidate its meaning. When, therefore, the
constitution, using this language, says a Supreme Court shall be
established, are we not justified in considering it as of constitutional
creation? And on the other hand, from the language applied to inferior
courts, are we not justified in considering their establishment as
dependent upon the Legislature, who may, from time to time, ordain them,
as the public good requires? Can any other meaning be applied to the
words "from time to time?" And nothing can be more important on this
subject than that the Legislature should have power, from time to time,
to create, to annul, or to modify the courts, as the public good may
require, not merely to-day, but for ever; and whenever a change of
circumstances may suggest the propriety of a different organization. On
this point, there is great force in the remark of the gentleman from
Georgia, that among the enumerated powers given to Congress, while there
is no mention made of the Supreme Court, the power of establishing
inferior courts is expressly given. Why this difference, but that the
Supreme Court was considered by the framers of the constitution, as
established by the constitution, while they considered the inferior
courts as dependent upon the will of the Legislature.

If the arguments now urged be correct, that a court once established
cannot be vacated, we are led into the greatest absurdities. Congress
might deem it expedient to establish a court for particular purposes,
limited as to its objects or duration. For instance: the United States
has taken possession of the Mississippi Territory, rightfully or not, I
will not pretend to say. This territory has been heretofore in the hands
of various masters, viz: France, England, Spain, and Georgia; and it is
now possessed by the United States. All these Governments, except the
United States, made certain grants of lands in the territory, and
certain settlers spread their conflicting patents over the country.
These different titles will open a wide field for litigation, which will
require able tribunals to decide upon. Suppose, then, Congress should
establish special tribunals to continue for three, four, or five years,
to settle these claims. Judges would be appointed. They would be the
judges of an inferior court. If the construction of the constitution now
contended for be established, what would the judges say, when the period
for which they were appointed expired? Would they not say, we belong to
inferior courts? Would they not laugh at you when you told them their
term of office was out? Would they not say, in the language of the
gentleman from New York, though the law that creates us is temporary, we
are in by the constitution? Have we not heard this doctrine supported in
the memorable case of the mandamus, lately before the Supreme Court? Was
it not there said that, though the law had a right to establish the
office of a justice of the peace, yet it had not a right to abridge its
duration to five years; that it was right in making the justices, but
unconstitutional in limiting their periods of office; that, being a
judicial officer, he had a right to hold his office during life--or,
what is the same thing--during good behavior, in despite of the law
which created him, and, in the very act of creation, limiting his
official life to five years.

I may notice another case, more likely to happen, to show the absurdity
of this construction. Congress have assumed jurisdiction over the
Mississippi Territory, and have established a court, composed of three
judges, which court is as much an inferior court as the circuit or
district courts. Of this jurisdiction Georgia denies the validity. The
contest is in a train of settlement. Suppose it shall turn out that the
United States are convinced of the injustice of their claim, relinquish
it, and restore the territory to Georgia, what becomes of the judges?
Their offices, their duties, are gone! Yet they will tell you, we are
vested with certain constitutional rights, of which you cannot deprive
us. It is true the territory is no longer yours. You have no
jurisdiction, we have no power, yet we are judges by the constitution.
We hold our offices during good behavior, and we will behave well as
long as you will let us. Is not this a strange situation? You have
judges in a territory over which you have no jurisdiction; and you have
officers which are perfect sinecures, pensioners for life. Such an
absurdity I am sure the constitution never meant to justify. It is an
absurdity equally repugnant to the letter and genius of the
constitution.

But it would seem that the argument urged on this occasion, and the
general course of our legislation, had been grounded more on the
convenience and emoluments of those appointed to office, than on grounds
of public utility. First, we appointed six judges of the Supreme Court,
divided the United States into three circuits, two judges to ride each
circuit, in which, with the district judge, to form a court. The law
fixed the duties and the compensation, and gentlemen of the first
character were ready to accept the places. The salaries indeed had been
thought high; in some parts of the Union they were thought enormous. But
a little time passed before they complained of the hardships of their
duties; and the law was altered, not so much for the public good as for
their personal convenience. Where two judges were required to hold a
court, one was now declared sufficient. Thus you continued their full
salaries, while you lopped off half their duties. Shortly after you
assigned them, under the pension law, inconsiderable duties; and they
refused to perform them. Thus, while they showed themselves ready to
abate of their duties, they adhered to their salaries. Next came the law
of last session, which takes away all their duties. It leaves them
simply a court of appeals. And what have they got to do? To try ten
suits; for such is the number now on their docket, as appears from a
certificate just put into my hands; and the average number on their
docket amounts to from eight to ten. Thus, for the trial of the immense
number of eight or ten suits, you have six judges, one with a salary of
four thousand, and five others with salaries of three thousand five
hundred dollars each.

I fear, said Mr. M., that if you take away from these judges that which
they ought officially to do, they will be induced, from the want of
employment, to do that which they ought not to do; they may do harm.
They may be induced, perhaps, to set about that work gentlemen seem so
fond of. They may, as gentlemen have told us, hold the constitution in
one hand, and the law in the other, and say to the departments of
Government, so far you shall go and no farther. This independence of the
Judiciary, so much desired, will, I fear, sir, if encouraged or
tolerated, soon become something like supremacy. They will, indeed, form
the main pillar of this goodly fabric; they will soon become the only
remaining pillar, and they will presently become so strong as to crush
and absorb all the others into their solid mass.

We, have been told, that no State in the Union has presumed to touch the
Judiciary establishment, except the State of Maryland. I will not answer
for others; but, with respect to Virginia, I will answer that she has
touched it. Her constitutional provision for the independence of the
judges is nearly similar to that of the United States, and yet she has
established, modified, and entirely put down particular departments of
her system.

Notwithstanding the remarks of gentlemen, I am inclined to think these
ideas of the extreme independence of the judges, and the limited powers
of the Legislature, are not very old, but that they are of modern
origin, and have grown up since the last session of Congress. For, in
the law passed last session, that very law which it is now proposed to
repeal, is to be found a practical exposition in direct hostility with
the principle now contended for, which does not betray that sacred
regard for the office of a judge, that is, on this occasion, professed:
in that very law will be found a clause which abolishes two district
courts. The words of the twenty-fourth section say, expressly, "the
district courts of Kentucky and Tennessee shall be and hereby are
abolished." Will gentlemen tell this House how this express provision
came into the act of the last session; and will they say, that though
they voted for this law, yet no power exists in the Legislature to
abolish a court? It is true, that it has been said that, though you put
down two district courts, you promoted the officers, by increasing their
salaries and making them judges of the circuit courts; but the fact is,
you have abolished their offices; they are judges no longer of the
districts of Kentucky and Tennessee; and they are to every purpose,
whatever may be their name, in reality circuit judges. Though you have
not lessened their salaries, you have deprived them of their offices.
However, therefore, gentlemen may calculate as to the benefit or injury
done these two judges, the principle is not affected by any result;
their offices are gone. It is not enough to say, that though you
destroyed their offices, you offered them others with higher salaries.
You took away from them, in express terms, their offices, by abolishing
the offices. You had stripped them of their offices, you had robbed them
of their vested right, and then, to make friends, offered them a
compensation; but whether the compensation thus offered for the
deprivation they had suffered, was really equivalent to their loss, is a
mere matter of calculation, and does not affect the constitutional
principle. It is proper, however, to observe, that they were no parties
to the proposed compromise, and that indeed they had no choice left
them. They were obliged to accept of what you offered them, or have
nothing. If they did not agree to become judges of the newly organized
circuit courts, they could not remain judges of the district courts, for
these courts were absolutely and completely abolished.

By the seventh section of the law of the last session, which transforms
the district into circuit courts, which melts down the judges and
recoins them, it is enacted, that there shall be a circuit court,
composed of one new circuit judge and two old district judges, to be
called the Sixth Circuit. Have you not then established a new office by
the destruction of the old one? Have you not done more? Have you not
violated the constitution, by declaring, by law, who shall fill this new
office, though the constitution declares, article second, section two,
"That the President shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall appoint all officers which shall be
established by law."

Where were these guardians of the constitution--these vigilant sentinels
of our rights and liberties, when this law passed? Were they asleep on
their post? Where was the gentleman from New York, who has, on this
debate, made such a noble stand in favor of a violated constitution?
Where was the _Ajax Telamon_ of his party, or, to use his own more
correct expression, the _faction_ to which he belonged? Where was the
hero with his seven-fold shield--not of bull's hide, but of
brass--prepared to prevent or to punish this Trojan rape, which he now
sees meditated upon the constitution of his country by a wicked
_faction_? Where was Hercules, that he did not crush this den of robbers
that broke into the sanctuary of the constitution? Was he forgetful of
his duty? Were his nerves unstrung? Or was he the very leader of the
band that broke down these constitutional ramparts?

I shall now, sir, trouble you with a few remarks on the expediency of
repealing this law. It has been said, that there is nothing peculiarly
disgustful in this law; that there has been no public clamor excited
against it; that it was enacted with solemnity, on calm and deliberate
reflection; and that time has not yet been given to test it by
experience.

As no member, who has taken part in debate, was a member of this body
when the law passed, I will say something of its history. I am not
disposed to excite the sensibility of gentlemen, by any remarks which I
shall make, or to call up unpleasant recollections of past scenes. But
when I hear it said that this law was passed with calmness, after mature
reflection, and that we are now, in a fit of passion, going to undo what
was thus wisely done, I think it necessary that the public should have a
correct statement.

It is true, that under the last Administration, when there existed (what
I trust will never, in an equal degree, exist again,) an immoderate
thirst for Executive patronage, a proposition was made to establish a
new judiciary system; a system worse than the present; as it proposed,
according to my recollection, thirty-eight judges instead of sixteen.
This law was very near passing. It was, however, rejected in the House
of Representatives by a very small majority. But it was circulated as a
project of a law among the people. It was illy received. It was thought
too rank a thing, and met with general disapprobation throughout the
United States, so far as I have been able to learn. After this
reception, it was softened down to the plan introduced at the last
session. What temper accompanied the progress of the bill in the other
House I know not, or, if I did know, would it be proper for me here to
say? But with respect to the acts of this body, I am not of opinion they
added any dignity to our common course of procedure. The bill was
referred to a committee, who, although it was very long, reported it
without any amendment. Various amendments were offered, some of which
were admitted to be proper. But they were not received. One, indeed,
proposed by a member from Connecticut, who was chairman of the
committee, and was then hostile to the plan, did pass in the early
stages of the bill, but on the third reading it was expunged. All
amendments proposed by the minority were uniformly rejected by a steady,
inflexible, and undeviating majority. I confess that I saw no passion,
but I certainly did see great pertinacity; something like what the
gentleman from Connecticut had termed _a holding fast_. No amendments
were admitted; when offered, we were told, no; you may get them
introduced by a rider or supplementary bill, or in any way you please;
but down this bill must go; it must be crammed down your throats. This
was not the precise phrase, but such was the amount of what was said.

I will say that not an argument was urged in favor of the bill, not a
word to show the necessity or propriety of the change. Yet we are told
that there was great dignity, great solemnity in its progress and
passage!

But there is something undignified in thus hastily repealing this law!
in thus yielding ourselves to the fluctuations of public opinion! So we
are told!--But if there be blame, on whom does it fall? Not on us, who
respected the public opinion when this law was passed, and who still
respect it; but on those who, in defiance of public opinion, passed this
law, after that public opinion had been decisively expressed. The
revolution in public opinion had taken place before the introduction of
this project; the people of the United States had determined to commit
their affairs to new agents; already had the confidence of the people
been transferred from their then rulers into other hands. After this
exposition of the national will, and this new deposit of the national
confidence, the gentlemen should have left untouched this important and
delicate subject--a subject on which the people could not be reconciled
to their views, even in the flood-tide of their power and influence;
they should have forborne, till agents, better acquainted with the
national will, because more recently constituted its organs, had come
into the Government. This would have been more dignified than to seize
the critical moment when power was passing from them, to pass such a law
as this. If there is error, it is our duty to correct it; and the truth
was, no law was ever more execrated by the public.

Let it not be said, postpone the repeal till the next session. No--let
us restore those gentlemen to private life, who have accepted
appointments under this law. This will be doing them greater justice,
than by keeping them in office another year, till the professional
business, which once attached to them, is gone into other channels.

Mr. STONE, of North Carolina.--Before entering into an examination of
the expediency of the repeal, it may be proper to remark, that gentlemen
who have spoken against the repeal, whose talents and eloquence I highly
admire, have not correctly stated the question. The true question is,
not whether we shall deprive the people of the United States of all
their courts of justice, but whether we shall restore to them their
former courts. Shall we, or shall we not, continue an experiment made,
or attempted to be made, I will not say improperly, because my respect
for this body and for my country, forbid the imputation; but I will say
that the length of time we remained without this system, and the
repeated ineffectual attempts made to establish it, present strong
reasons for inferring that there are not those great apparent reasons in
favor of it, that have been stated. A system somewhat similar to the
present had been rejected by the Legislature, because they preferred the
former system. Another evidence to the same purport is, that during the
last session, when the subject was again revived, and the present plan
adopted, an amendment was offered, to amend by extending and enlarging
the former establishment.

[Here Mr. S. read the amendment proposed, which augmented the number of
judges of the Supreme Court, and assigned their circuits.]

This amendment was rejected, and from the vote entered on the journal of
that day, it appears that the difference of votes against the amendment
was formed of those gentlemen who were nominated to appointments made
vacant by the promotions under the new law. I do not state this
circumstance as an evidence that these gentlemen were influenced by
improper motives; but to show that the manner in which the new system
was formed, was not calculated to establish, in the public mind, a
decided preference of it over the old system. Having made these remarks
on the great deliberation said to have been manifested in the adoption
of this plan, I hope I may be permitted to express my perfect
coincidence with the gentleman from Connecticut, that courts are
necessary for the administration of justice, and that, without them,
our laws would be a dead letter.

But it appears to me essential to the due administration of justice,
that those who preside in our courts should be well acquainted with the
laws which are to guide their decisions. And, I apprehend, that no way
is so much calculated to impart this knowledge, as a practical
acquaintance with them, by attending courts in the several States, and
hearing gentlemen who are particularly acquainted with them, explain and
discuss them. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary, in my mind, that
the Judges of the Supreme Court, whose power controls all the other
tribunals, and on whose decisions rest the property, the reputation, the
liberty, and the lives of our citizens, should, by riding the circuit,
render themselves practically acquainted with their duties. It is well
known, that the knowledge of the laws of a State, is not to be suddenly
acquired, and it is reasonable to conclude, that that knowledge is most
correctly possessed by men whose whole lives have been devoted to the
acquisition. It is also perfectly well known, that the knowledge of the
modes and principles of practice in the different States, or of any
State, is most effectually to be acquired in courts, where gentlemen of
skill and experience apply those principles to use upon existing points.

This defect, then, of the present plan, is, in my opinion, so radical,
that, of itself, it would decide, with me, the question of expediency.

To what source, then, shall we resort for a knowledge of what
constitutes this thing, called misbehavior in office? The constitution,
surely, did not intend that a circumstance so important as the tenure by
which the judges hold their offices, should be incapable of being
ascertained. Their misbehavior, certainly, is not an impeachable
offence; still it is the ground upon which the judges are to be removed
from office. The process of impeachment, therefore, cannot be the only
one by which the judges may be removed from office, under, and according
to the constitution. I take it, therefore, to be a thing undeniable,
that there resides somewhere in the Government, a power to declare what
shall amount to misbehavior in office, by the judges, and to remove them
from office for the same, without impeachment. The constitution does not
prohibit their removal by the Legislature, who have the power to make
all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers
vested by the constitution in the Government of the United States. But,
says the gentleman from New York, the judges are officers instituted by
the constitution, to save the people from their greatest enemies,
themselves; and therefore, they should be entirely independent of, and
beyond the control of the Legislature. If such was the design of the
wise men who framed and adopted the constitution, can it be presumed
they would have provided so ineffectual a barrier, as these judges can
readily be shown to be? It is allowed, on all hands, the Legislature
may modify the courts; they may add judges, they may fix the times at
which the courts shall sit, &c. Suppose the Legislature to have
interests distinct from the people, and the judges to stand in the way
of executing any favorite measure--can any thing be more easy than for
the Legislature to declare that the courts, instead of being held
semi-annually, or oftener, shall be held only once in six, eight, ten,
or twenty years? Or, in order to free themselves from the opposition of
the present Supreme Court, to declare, that court shall hereafter be
held by thirteen judges. An understanding between the President and the
Senate, would make it practicable to fill the new offices with men of
different views and opinions from those now in office. And what, in
either case, would become of this boasted protection of the people
against themselves? I cannot conceive the constitution intended so
feeble a barrier; a barrier so easily evaded.

It is not alone the sixteen rank and file, which the gentleman from New
York has so ludicrously depicted, that I apprehend immediate danger
from, but it is the principle which converts the office of judge into a
hospital of incurables, and declares, that an expiring faction, after
having lost the public confidence, may add to those sixteen, until they
become sixteen hundred or sixteen thousand; and that the restored good
sense of the Legislature, the whole Government and constitution, retains
no means of casting them off, but by destroying itself, and resorting to
revolutionary principles. The Legislature may repeal unnecessary taxes,
may disband useless and expensive armies, may declare they will no
longer be bound by the stipulations of an oppressive treaty; and if war
should follow, the constitution is still safe. But if the construction
which gentlemen contend for, be correct, a band of drones, to any amount
in number, under the denomination of judges, may prey upon the substance
of the people, and the Government retains not the power to remove them
but by destroying the constitution itself.


THURSDAY, January 14.

_Judiciary System._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made on the 6th
instant, that the act of Congress passed on the 13th day of February,
1801, entitled "An act to provide for the more convenient organization
of the Courts of the United States," ought to be repealed.

Mr. OLCOTT, of New Hampshire, said this subject was of the most
important kind, and though many able arguments had been already offered,
he could not pass it over with a silent vote.

It has been suggested that the act now proposed to be repealed, came in
on the influx of passion, and that the influx of reason should sweep it
away. He did not know that this was the case. Some gentlemen contend
that it was adopted with great deliberation.

He thought the reasons for a repeal of this law insufficient. It is not
said, that if the constitution vests a right to office in the judges,
that we can affect them. He thought the constitution did vest the right,
and he held it to be sacred.

The provisions of the constitution appeared to him so plain, that they
scarcely admitted of illustration. He who undertakes to explain the
text, must find more explicit terms than those contained in it. He could
not find any.

After dwelling upon the different provisions of the constitution, Mr. O.
went upon the question of expediency, at some length, and concluded that
a repeal was as inexpedient as unconstitutional.

Mr. COCKE, of Tennessee, followed Mr. OLCOTT. He said he was sorry
gentlemen attempted to make quack doctors of them, by saying we may give
a wound, but cannot heal it. He wished the Senate to inquire whether the
law now proposed to be repealed was constitutional or not. If it was
not, we should act like honest men, acknowledge that we have violated
the constitution, and restore it to its purity by repealing the law. Let
us recur to the journals of 1799, and see what was the understanding of
these champions of our liberties, and whether they have not since
changed. The journals would prove that the judges were to mix with the
Legislature, were to be locked up in a closet, and to declare who was to
be our Executive Magistrate.

[Mr. COCKE here went into an examination of the arguments on the
constitutional point.]

We have been told that the nation is to look up to these immaculate
judges to protect their liberties; to protect the people against
themselves. This was novel, and what result did it lead to? He shuddered
to think of it. Were there none of these judges ready to plunge their
swords in the American heart? He did not think it proper to be alarmed
by the terrors held out. He wished to know no man; to take things as
they are. But if gentlemen will attack, they must expect a reply.

Mr. COCKE then dilated upon the several points of the discussion, and
concluded with the expression of the hope that the Legislature would
repeal the law, and that they would not give way to the ideas of
gentlemen, that the Government was made for a chosen few, for the
judges, to whom we are to look up for every thing.

Mr. MORRIS.--Mr. President, I had fostered the hope that some gentleman,
who thinks with me, would have taken upon himself the task of replying
to the observations made yesterday and this morning, in favor of the
motion on your table. But since no gentleman has gone so fully into the
subject, as it seems to require, I am compelled to request your
attention.

After these preliminary remarks, I hope I shall be indulged while I
consider the subject in reference to the two points which have been
taken, the _expediency_ and the _constitutionality_ of the repeal.

In considering the _expediency_, I hope I shall be pardoned for asking
your attention to some parts of the constitution, which have not yet
been dwelt upon, and which tend to elucidate this part of our inquiry. I
agree fully with the gentleman, that every section, every sentence, and
every word of the constitution, ought to be deliberately weighed and
examined; nay, I am content to go along with him, and give its due value
and importance to every stop and comma. In the beginning, we find a
declaration of the motives which induced the American people to bind
themselves by this compact. And in the fore-ground of that declaration,
we find these objects specified, "to form a more perfect union, to
establish justice, and to ensure domestic tranquillity." But how are
these objects effected? The people intended to _establish justice_. What
provision have they made to fulfil that intention? After pointing out
the courts which should be established, the second section of the third
article informs us:

      "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and
      equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the
      United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made,
      under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors,
      other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of
      admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to
      which the United States shall be a party; to controversies
      between two or more States; between a State and citizens of
      another State; between citizens of different States;
      between citizens of the same State claiming lands under
      grants of different States; and between a State, or the
      citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or
      subjects.

      "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
      and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party,
      the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all
      the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall
      have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with
      such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress
      shall make."

Thus then we find that the judicial power shall extend to a great
variety of cases, but that the Supreme Court shall have only appellate
jurisdiction in all admiralty and maritime causes, in all controversies
between the United States and private citizens, between citizens of
different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands
under different States, and between a citizen of the United States and
foreign states, citizens, or subjects. The honorable gentleman from
Kentucky, who made the motion on your table, has told us that the
constitution, in its judiciary provisions, contemplated only those cases
which could not be tried in the State courts. But he will, I hope,
pardon me when I contend that the constitution did not merely
contemplate, but did, by express words, reserve to the national
tribunals a right to decide, and did secure to the citizens of America,
a right to demand their decision, in many cases evidently cognizable in
the State courts. And what are these cases? They are those in respect to
which it is by the constitution presumed that the State courts would not
always make a cool and calm investigation, a fair and just decision. To
form, therefore, a more perfect union, and to ensure domestic
tranquillity, the constitution has said there shall be courts of the
Union to try causes, by the wrongful decision of which the Union might
be endangered or domestic tranquillity be disturbed. And what courts?
Look again at the cases designated. The Supreme Court has no original
jurisdiction. The constitution has said that the judicial powers shall
be vested in the supreme and inferior courts. It has declared that the
judicial power so vested shall extend to the cases mentioned, and that
the Supreme Court shall not have original jurisdiction in those cases.
Evidently, therefore, it has declared that they shall (in the first
instance) be tried by inferior courts, with appeal to the Supreme Court.
This, therefore, amounts to a declaration, that the inferior courts
shall exist. Since, without them, the citizen is deprived of those
rights for which he stipulated, or rather those rights verbally granted,
would be actually withheld; and that great security of our Union, that
necessary guard of our tranquillity, be completely paralyzed, if not
destroyed. In declaring, then, that these tribunals shall exist, it
equally declares that the Congress shall ordain and establish them. I
say they shall; this is the evident intention, if not the express words,
of the constitution. The convention in framing, the American people in
adopting, that compact, did not, could not presume, that the Congress
would omit to do what they were thus bound to do. They could not
presume, that the Legislature would hesitate one moment, in establishing
the organs necessary to carry into effect those wholesome, those
important provisions.

The honorable member from Virginia has given us a history of the
judicial system, and in the course of it has told us, that the Judges of
the Supreme Court knew, when they accepted their offices, the duties
they had to perform, and the salaries they were to receive. He thence
infers, that if again called on to do the same duties, they have no
right to complain. Agreed: but that is not the question between us.
Admitting that they have made a hard bargain, and that we may hold them
to a strict performance, is it wise to exact their compliance to the
injury of our constituents? We are urged to go back to the old system;
but let us first examine the effects of that system. The Judges of the
Supreme Court rode the circuits, and two of them, with the assistance of
a district judge, held circuit courts and tried causes. As a Supreme
Court, they have in most cases only appellate jurisdiction. In the first
instance, therefore, they tried a cause, sitting as an inferior court,
and then on appeal tried it over again, as a Supreme Court. Thus, then,
the appeal was from the sentence of the judges to the judges themselves.
But say, that to avoid this impropriety, you will incapacitate the two
judges who sat on the circuit, from sitting in the Supreme Court to
review their own decrees. Strike them off; and suppose either the same
or a contrary decision to have been made on another circuit, by two of
their brethren, in a similar case. For the same reason you strike them
off, and then you have no court left. Is this wise? Is it safe? You
place yourselves in the situation where your citizens must be deprived
of the advantage given to them of a court of appeals, or else run the
greatest risk that the decision of the first court will carry with it
that of the other.

The same honorable member has given us a history of the law passed the
last session, which he wishes now to repeal. That history is accurate,
at least in one important part of it. I believe that all amendments were
rejected, pertinaciously rejected; and I acknowledge that I joined
heartily in that rejection. It was for the clearest reason on earth. We
all perfectly understood, that to amend the bill was to destroy it; that
if ever it got back to the other House, it would perish. Those,
therefore, who approved of the general provisions of that bill, were
determined to adopt it. We sought the practicable good, and would not,
in pursuit of unattainable perfection, sacrifice that good to the pride
of opinion. We took the bill, therefore, with its imperfections,
convinced that when it was once passed into a law, it might be easily
amended.

We are now told, that this procedure was improper; nay, that it was
indecent. That public opinion had declared itself against us. That a
majority (holding different opinions) was already chosen to the other
House; and that a similar majority was expected from that in which we
sit. Mr. President, are we then to understand that opposition to the
majority in the two Houses of Congress, is improper, is indecent? If so,
what are we to think of those gentlemen, who, not only with proper and
decent, but with laudable motives, (for such is their claim,) so long,
so perseveringly, so pertinaciously opposed that voice of the people,
which had so repeatedly, and for so many years, declared itself against
them, through the organ of their representatives? Was this indecent in
them? If not, how could it be improper for us to seize the only moment
which was left for the then majority to do what they deemed a necessary
act? Let me again refer to those imperious demands of the constitution,
which called on us to establish inferior courts. Let me remind gentlemen
of their assertion on this floor, that centuries might elapse before any
judicial system could be established with general consent. And then let
me ask, being thus impressed with the sense of the duty and the
difficulty of performing that arduous task, was it not wise to seize the
auspicious moment?

Among the many stigmas affixed to this law, we have been told that the
President, in selecting men to fill the offices which it created, made
vacancies and filled them from the floor of this House; and that but for
the influence of this circumstance, a majority in favor of it could not
have been found. Let us examine this suggestion. It is grounded on a
supposition of corrupt influence derived from a hope, founded on two
remote and successive contingencies. First, the vacancy might or might
not exist; for it depended as well on the acceptance of another, as on
the President's grant; and secondly, the President might or might not
fill it with a member of this House. Yet, on this vague conjecture, on
this unstable ground, it is inferred that men in high confidence
violated their duty. It is hard to determine the influence of
self-interest on the heart of man. I shall not, therefore, make the
attempt. In the present case, it is possible that the imputation may be
just, but I hope not, I believe not. At any rate gentlemen will agree
with me, that the calculation is uncertain, and the conjecture vague.

But let it now, for argument sake, be admitted, saving always the
reputation of honorable men, who are not here to defend themselves. Let
it, I say, for argument sake be admitted, that the gentlemen alluded to
acted under the influence of improper motives. What then? Is a law that
has received the varied assent required by the constitution, and is
clothed with all the needful formalities, thereby invalidated? Can you
impair its force by impeaching the motives of any member who voted for
it? Does it follow, that a law is bad because all those who concurred in
it cannot give good reasons for their votes? Is it not before us? Must
we not judge of it by its intrinsic merit? Is it a fair argument,
addressed to our understanding, to say, we must repeal a law, even a
good one, if the enacting of it may have been effected in any degree by
improper motives? Or is the judgment of this House so feeble, that it
may not be trusted?

Let us, however, examine the clause objected to on the ground of the
constitution. It is said, that by this law the district judges in
Tennessee and Kentucky are removed from office, by making them circuit
judges. And again, that you have by law appointed two new offices, those
of circuit judges, and filled them by law, instead of pursuing the mode
of appointment prescribed by the constitution. To prove all this, the
gentleman from Virginia did us the favor to read those parts of the law
which he condemns, and if I can trust to my memory, it is clear, from
what he read, that the law does not remove these district judges,
neither does it appoint them to the office of circuit judges. It does
indeed put down the district courts; but it is so far from destroying
the offices of district judge, that it declares the persons filling
those offices shall perform the duty of holding the circuit courts. And
so far is it from appointing circuit judges, that it declares the
circuit courts shall be held by the district judges. But gentlemen
contend, that to discontinue the district courts, was in effect to
remove the district judge. This, sir, is so far from being a just
inference from the law, that the direct contrary follows as a necessary
result; for it is on the principle that these judges continue in office
after their courts are discontinued, that the new duty of holding other
courts is assigned to them. But, gentlemen say, this doctrine militates
with the principles we contend for. Surely not. It must be recollected,
sir, that we have repeatedly admitted the right of the Legislature to
change, alter, modify, and amend the judiciary system, so as best to
promote the interests of the people. We only contend that you shall not
exceed or contravene the authority by which you act. But, say gentlemen,
you forced this new office on the district judges, and this is in effect
a new appointment. I answer, that the question can only arise on the
refusal of those judges to act. But is it unconstitutional to assign new
duties to officers already existing? I fear that if this construction be
adopted, our labors will speedily end; for we shall be so shackled, that
we cannot move. What is the practice? Do we not every day call upon
particular officers to perform duties not previously assigned to, or
required of them? And must the Executive in every such case make a new
appointment?

But as a further reason to restore, by repealing this law, the old
system, an honorable member from North Carolina has told us, the judges
of the Supreme Court should attend in the States, to acquire a competent
knowledge of local institutions, and for this purpose should continue to
ride the circuits. I believe there is great use in sending young men to
travel; it tends to enlarge their views and give them more liberal ideas
than they might otherwise possess. Nay, if they reside long enough in
foreign countries they may become acquainted with the manners of the
people and acquire some knowledge of their civil institutions. But I am
not quite convinced that riding rapidly from one end of this country to
the other is the best way to study law. I am inclined to believe that
knowledge may be more conveniently acquired in the closet than in the
high road. It is moreover to be presumed that the first Magistrate
would, in selecting persons to fill these offices, take the best
characters from the different parts of the country, who already possess
the needful acquirements. But admitting that the President should not
duly exercise, in this respect, his discretionary powers, and admitting
that the ideas of the gentleman are correct, how wretched must be our
condition! These, our judges, when called on to exercise their
functions, would but begin to learn their trade, and that too at a
period of life when the intellectual powers with no great facility can
acquire new ideas. We must, therefore, have a double set of judges. One
set of apprentice-judges to ride circuits and learn; the other set of
master-judges, to hold courts and decide controversies.

We are told, sir, that the repeal asked for is important, in that it may
establish a precedent, for that it is not merely a question on the
propriety of disbanding a corps of sixteen rank and file; but that
provision may hereafter be made, not for sixteen but for sixteen hundred
or sixteen thousand judges, and that it may become necessary to turn
them to the right about. Mr. President, I will not, I cannot presume,
that any such provision will ever be made, and therefore I cannot
conceive any such necessity; I will not suppose, for I cannot suppose,
that any party or faction will ever do any thing so wild, so
extravagant. But I will ask, how does this strange supposition consist
with the doctrine of gentlemen, that public opinion is a sufficient
check on the Legislature, and a sufficient safeguard to the people? Put
the case to its consequences, and what becomes of the check? Will
gentlemen say it is to be found in the force of this wise precedent? Is
this to control succeeding rulers in their wild, their mad career? But
how? Is the creation of judicial officers the only thing committed to
their discretion? Have they not, according to the doctrine contended
for, our all at their disposition, with no other check than public
opinion, which, according to the supposition, will not prevent them from
committing the greatest follies and absurdities? Take then all the
gentleman's ideas, and compare them together, it will result that here
is an inestimable treasure put into the hands of drunkards, madmen, and
fools.

But away with all these derogatory suppositions. The Legislature may be
trusted. Our Government is a system of salutary checks: one Legislative
branch is a check on the other. And should the violence of party spirit
bear both of them away, the President, an officer high in honor, high in
the public confidence, charged with weighty concerns, responsible to his
own reputation and to the world, stands ready to arrest their too
impetuous course. This is our system. It makes no mad appeal to every
mob in the country. It appeals to the sober sense of men selected from
their fellow-citizens for their talents, for their virtue; of men
advanced in life, and of mature judgment. It appeals to their
understanding, to their integrity, to their honor, to their love of
fame, to their sense of shame. If all these checks should prove
insufficient, and alas! such is the condition of human nature, that I
fear they will not always be sufficient, the constitution has given us
one more: it has given us an independent judiciary. We have been told
that the Executive authority carries your laws into execution. But let
us not be the dupes of sound. The Executive Magistrate commands indeed
your fleets and armies; and duties, imposts, excises, and other taxes
are collected, and all expenditures are made by officers whom he has
appointed. So far indeed he executes your laws. But these, his acts,
apply not often to individual concerns. In those cases so important to
the peace and happiness of society, the execution of your laws is
confided to your judges; and therefore are they rendered independent.
Before then that you violate that independence, pause. There are State
sovereignties, as well as the sovereignty of the General Government.
There are cases, too many cases, in which the interest of one is not
considered as the interest of the other. Should these conflict, if the
Judiciary be gone, the question is no longer of law, but of force. This
is a state of things which no honest and wise man can view without
horror.

Suppose, in the omnipotence of your Legislative authority, you trench
upon the rights of your fellow-citizens, by passing an unconstitutional
law. If the Judiciary Department preserve its vigor, it will stop you
short. Instead of a resort to arms, there will be a happier appeal to
argument. Suppose a case still more impressive. The President is at the
head of your armies. Let one of his generals, flushed with victory and
proud in command, presume to trample on the rights of your most
insignificant citizen: indignant of the wrong, he will demand the
protection of your tribunals, and, safe in the shadow of their wings,
will laugh his oppressor to scorn.

This, sir, leads me to the second object I had proposed. I shall
therefore pray your indulgence, while I consider how far this measure is
_constitutional_. I have not been able to discover the expediency, but
will now, for argument's sake, admit it; and here, I cannot but express
my deep regret for the situation of an honorable member from North
Carolina. Tied fast, as he is, by his instructions, arguments, however
forcible, can never be effectual. I ought, therefore, to wish, for his
sake, that his mind may not be convinced by any thing I shall say; for
hard indeed would be his condition, to be bound by the contrarient
obligations of an order and an oath. I cannot, however, but express my
profound respect for the talents of those who gave him his instructions,
and who, sitting at a distance, without hearing the arguments, could
better understand the subject than their Senator on this floor, after
full discussion.

The honorable member from Virginia has repeated the distinction before
taken between the supreme and the inferior tribunals; he has insisted on
the distinction between the words _shall_ and _may_; has inferred from
that distinction, that the judges of the inferior courts are subjects of
Legislative discretion; and has contended that the word _may_ includes
all power respecting the subject to which it is applied, consequently to
raise up and to pull down, to create and to destroy. I must entreat your
patience, sir, while I go more into this subject than ever I supposed
would be necessary. By the articles so often quoted, it is declared,
"that the judicial power of the United States _shall_ be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress _may_ from
time to time establish." I beg leave to call your attention to what I
have already said of these inferior courts. That the original
jurisdiction of various subjects being given exclusively to them, it
became the bounden duty of Congress to establish such courts. I will not
repeat the argument already used on that subject. But I will ask those
who urged the distinction between the Supreme Court and the inferior
tribunals, whether a law was not previously necessary before the
Supreme Court could be organized. They reply, that the constitution
says, there _shall_ be a Supreme Court, and therefore the Congress are
commanded to organize it, while the rest is left to their discretion.
This, sir, is not the fact. The constitution says, the judicial power
shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in inferior courts. The
Legislature can therefore only organize one Supreme Court, but they may
establish as many inferior courts as they shall think proper. The
designation made of them by the constitution is, such inferior courts as
the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. But why, say
gentlemen, fix precisely one Supreme Court, and leave the rest to
Legislative discretion? The answer is simple: it results from the nature
of things from the existent and probable state of our country. There was
no difficulty in deciding that one and only one Supreme Court would be
proper or necessary, to which should lie appeals from inferior
tribunals. Not so as to these. The United States were advancing in rapid
progression. Their population of three millions was soon to become five,
then ten, afterwards twenty millions. This was well known, as far as the
future can become an object of human comprehension. In this increase of
numbers, with a still greater increase of wealth, with the extension of
our commerce and the progress of the arts, it was evident that although
a great many tribunals would become necessary, it was impossible to
determine either on the precise number or the most convenient form. The
convention did not pretend to this prescience; but had they possessed
it, would it have been proper to have established, then, all the
tribunals necessary for all future times? Would it have been wise to
have planted courts among the Chickasaws, the Choctaws, the Cherokees,
the Tuscaroras, and God knows how many more, because at some future day
the regions over which they roam might be cultivated by polished men!
Was it not proper, wise and necessary, to leave in the discretion of
Congress the number and the kind of courts which they might find it
proper to establish for the purpose designated by the constitution? This
simple statement of facts--facts of public notoriety--is alone a
sufficient comment on, and explanation of, the word on which gentlemen
have so much relied. The convention in framing, the people in adopting,
this compact say the judicial power shall extend to many cases, the
original cognizance whereof shall be by the inferior courts; but it is
neither necessary, nor even possible now to determine their number or
their form; that essential power, therefore, shall vest in such inferior
courts as the Congress may from time to time, in the progression of
time, and according to the indication of circumstances, establish; not
provide, or determine, but establish. Not a mere temporary provision,
but an establishment. If, after this, it had said in general terms, that
judges should hold their offices during good behavior, could a doubt
have existed on the interpretation of this act, under all its attending
circumstances, that the judges of the inferior courts were intended as
well as those of the Supreme Court? But did the framers of the
constitution stop here? Is there then nothing more? Did they risk on
these grammatical niceties the fate of America? Did they rest here the
most important branch of our Government? Little important, indeed, as to
foreign danger; but infinitely valuable to our domestic peace, and to
personal protection against the oppression of our rulers. No; lest a
doubt should be raised, they have carefully connected the judges of both
courts in the same sentence; they have said, "the judges both of the
supreme and inferior courts," thus coupling them inseparably together.
You may cut the bands, but you can never untie them. With salutary
caution they devised this clause to arrest the over-bearing temper which
they knew belonged to Legislative bodies. They do not say the judges,
simply, but the judges of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold
their offices during good behavior. They say, therefore, to the
Legislature, you may judge of the propriety, the utility, the necessity,
of organizing these courts; but when established, you have done your
duty. Anticipating the course of passion in future times, they say to
the Legislature, you shall not disgrace yourselves by exhibiting the
indecent spectacle of judges established by one Legislature removed by
another. We will save you also from yourselves. We say these judges
shall hold their offices; and surely, sir, to pretend that they can hold
their office after the office is destroyed, is contemptible.

The framers of this constitution had seen much, read much, and deeply
reflected. They knew by experience the violence of popular bodies, and
let it be remembered, that since that day many of the States, taught by
experience, have found it necessary to change their forms of government
to avoid the effects of that violence. The convention contemplated the
very act you now attempt. They knew also the jealousy and the power of
the States; and they established for your and for their protection this
most important department. I beg gentlemen to hear and remember what I
say: it is this department alone, and it is the independence of this
department, which can save you from civil war. Yes, sir, adopt the
language of gentlemen, say with them, by the act to which you are urged,
"if we cannot remove the judges we can destroy them." Establish thus the
dependence of the Judiciary Department, who will resort to them for
protection against you? Who will confide in, who will be bound by their
decrees? Are we then to resort to the ultimate reason of kings? Are our
arguments to fly from the mouths of our cannon?

Is there a member of this House, who can lay his hand on his heart, and
say that, consistently with the plain words of our constitution, we have
a right to repeal this law? I believe not. And if we undertake to
construe this constitution to our purposes, and say that public opinion
is to be our judge, there is an end to all constitutions. To what will
not this dangerous doctrine lead? Should it to-day be the popular wish
to destroy the First Magistrate, you can destroy him; and should he
to-morrow be able to conciliate to him the popular will, and lead them
to wish for your destruction, it is easily effected. Adopt this
principle and the whim of the moment will not only be the law, but the
constitution of our country.

The gentleman from Virginia has mentioned a great nation brought to the
feet of one of her servants. But why is she in that situation? Is it not
because popular opinion was called on to decide every thing, until those
who wore bayonets decided for all the rest? Our situation is peculiar.
At present our national compact can prevent a State from acting
hostilely towards the general interest. But let this compact be
destroyed, and each State becomes instantaneously vested with absolute
sovereignty. Is there no instance of a similar situation to be found in
history? Look at the States of Greece. They were once in a condition not
unlike to that in which we should then stand. They treated the
recommendations of their Amphictyonic Council (which was more a meeting
of Ambassadors than a Legislative assembly) as we did the resolutions of
the old Congress. Are we wise? So they were. Are we valiant? They also
were brave. Have we one common language, and are we united under one
head? In this, also, there was a strong resemblance. But, by their
divisions, they became at first victims to the ambition of Philip, and
were at length swallowed up in the Roman empire. Are we to form an
exception to the general principles of nature, and to all the examples
of history? And are the maxims of experience to become false, when
applied to our fate?

Some, indeed, flatter themselves that our destiny will be like that of
Rome. Such, indeed, it might be, if we had the same wise but vile
aristocracy, under whose guidance they became the masters of the world.
But we have not that strong aristocratic arm, which can seize a wretched
citizen, scourged almost to death by a remorseless creditor, turn him
into the ranks, and bid him, as a soldier bear our eagle in triumph
round the globe! I hope to God we shall never have such an abominable
institution. But what, I ask, will be the situation of these States
(organized as they now are) if, by the dissolution of our national
compact, they be left to themselves? What is the probable result? We
shall either be the victims of foreign intrigue, and split into
factions, fall under the domination of a foreign power, or else, after
the misery and torment of civil war, become the subjects of a usurping
military despot. What but this compact--what but this specific part of
it, can save us from ruin? The judicial power, that fortress of the
constitution, is now to be overturned. Yes, with honest Ajax, I would
not only throw a shield before it, I would build around it a wall of
brass. But I am too weak to defend the rampart against the host of
assailants. I must call to my assistance their good sense, their
patriotism and their virtue. Do not, gentlemen, suffer the rage of
passion to drive reason from her seat. If this law be indeed bad, let us
join to remedy the defects. Has it been passed in a manner which wounded
your pride, or aroused your resentment? Have, I conjure you, the
magnanimity to pardon that offence. I entreat, I implore you to
sacrifice those angry passions to the interests of our country. Pour out
this pride of opinion on the altar of patriotism. Let it be an expiatory
libation for the weal of America. Do not, for God's sake, do not suffer
that pride to plunge us all into the abyss of ruin. Indeed, indeed, it
will be but of little, very little avail, whether one opinion or the
other be right or wrong; it will heal no wounds, it will pay no debts,
it will rebuild no ravaged towns. Do not rely on that popular will,
which has brought us frail beings into political existence. That opinion
is but a changeable thing. It will soon change. This very measure will
change it. You will be deceived. Do not, I beseech you, in reliance on a
foundation so frail, commit the dignity, the harmony, the existence of
our nation to the wild wind. Trust not your treasure to the waves. Throw
not your compass and your charts into the ocean. Do not believe that its
billows will waft you into port. Indeed, indeed, you will be deceived.
Cast not away this only anchor of our safety. I have seen its progress.
I know the difficulties through which it was obtained. I stand in the
presence of Almighty God, and of the world: and I declare to you, that
if you lose this charter, never, no, never will you get another! We are
now, perhaps, arrived at the parting point. Here, even here, we stand on
the brink of fate. Pause--pause! For Heaven's sake, pause!


WEDNESDAY, February 3.

The question was then taken on the final passage of the bill and
determined in the affirmative--yeas 16, nays 15, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge,
      Brown, Cocke, Ellery, T. Foster, Franklin, Jackson, Logan,
      S. T. Mason, Nicholas, Stone, Sumter, and Wright.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Chipman, Colhoun, Dayton, D. Foster,
      Hillhouse, Howard, J. Mason, Morris, Ogden, Olcott, Ross,
      Sheafe, Tracy, Wells, and White.[65]

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and
that the title thereof be "An act to repeal certain acts respecting the
organization of the courts of the United States, and for other
purposes."


SATURDAY, April 17.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of
a President _pro tempore_, as the constitution so provides; and the
honorable ABRAHAM BALDWIN was chosen.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives of
this election.

On motion, it was

_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, and acquaint him that the Senate have, in the absence of the
VICE PRESIDENT, elected the honorable ABRAHAM BALDWIN their President
_pro tempore_.


MONDAY, April 26.

_Relief to Widows and Orphans of Naval and Marine Officers._

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, entitled "An act for
the relief of the widows and orphans of certain persons who have died,
or may hereafter die, in the naval service of the United States."

On motion to strike out the second section of the bill, to wit:

      "SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That if any
      commissioned or warrant officer of the Navy, or
      commissioned officer of Marines, have died, or shall
      hereafter die, by reason of wounds received while in the
      actual service of the United States, or have been lost at
      sea, or drowned, or shall hereafter be lost at sea, or
      drowned, while in the service as aforesaid, and in the
      actual line of his duty, and shall leave a widow, or if
      not, leave a child or children, under age, such widow, or
      such child, or children, as the case may be, shall be
      entitled to, and receive, the half of the monthly pay to
      which the deceased was entitled at the time of his death,
      and for and during the term of five years. And in case of
      the death or intermarriage of such widow, before the
      expiration of the said term of five years, the half pay for
      the residue of the term shall go to the child or children
      of such deceased officer under the age of sixteen years;
      and, in like manner, the allowance to the child or children
      of such deceased, in case there be no widow, shall be paid
      no longer than during the time there is a child or children
      under the age of sixteen years."

It passed in the affirmative--yeas 16, nays 8, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Brown, Clinton,
      Cocke, Dayton, T. Foster, Franklin, Jackson, S. T. Mason,
      Ogden, Olcott, Stone, Sumter, and Wright.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Ellery, Dwight Foster, Howard, J. Mason,
      Morris, Nicholas, Wells, and White.

_Georgia Limits._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
      Representatives_:

      In pursuance of the act, entitled "An act supplemental to
      the act, entitled 'An act for an amicable settlement of
      limits with the State of Georgia, and authorizing the
      establishment of a government in the Mississippi
      Territory,'" James Madison, Secretary of State, Albert
      Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, and Levi Lincoln,
      Attorney General of the United States, were appointed
      Commissioners, to settle by compromise, with the
      Commissioners appointed by the State of Georgia, the claims
      and cession to which the said act has relation.

      Articles of agreement and cession have accordingly been
      entered into and signed by the said Commissioners of the
      United States and of Georgia, which, as they leave a right
      to Congress to act upon them legislatively, at any time
      within six months after their date, I have thought it my
      duty immediately to communicate to the Legislature.

                          TH. JEFFERSON.

      APRIL 26, 1802.

The Message and documents therein referred to were read, and ordered to
be printed for the use of the Senate.


TUESDAY, April 27.

_State Government for Ohio._

The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill to enable the people
of the Eastern division of the territory north-west of the river Ohio to
form a constitution and State government.

On motion, section sixth, to strike out the following words, reported by
the committee to be struck out, and which report was amended, as
follows:

      "_Provided_, That the convention of the said State shall,
      on its part, assent that each and every tract of land sold
      by Congress, from and after the 30th day of June next,
      shall be and remain exempt from any tax laid by order or
      under authority of the State, whether for State, county,
      township, or any other purpose whatever, for the term of
      five years from and after the day of sale:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 12, nays 14, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Dayton, Dwight, Foster,
      Howard, J. Mason, Morris, Ogden, Olcott, Tracy, Wells, and
      White.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Breckenridge, Clinton,
      Ellery, T. Foster, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason,
      Nicholas, Stone, Sumter, and Wright.

On motion to strike out the words reported by the committee to be struck
out of section sixth, and amended as follows:

      "_Third._ That one-twentieth part of the net proceeds of
      the lands lying within the said State, sold by Congress,
      from and after the thirtieth day of June next, after
      deducting all expenses incident to the same, shall be
      applied to the laying out and making public roads, leading
      from the navigable waters emptying into the Atlantic to the
      Ohio, or to the navigable waters thereof, and continued
      through the said State: such roads to be laid out under the
      authority of Congress with the consent of the several
      States through which the road shall pass:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 12, nays 14, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Dayton, Dwight, Foster,
      Howard, J. Mason, Morris, Ogden, Olcott, Tracy, Wells, and
      White.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Breckenridge, Clinton,
      Ellery, T. Foster, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason,
      Nicholas, Stone, Sumter, and Wright.

On motion to strike out these words, reported by the committee to be
struck out of the sixth section:

      "_Second._ That the six miles reservation, including the
      salt springs, commonly called the Scioto Salt Springs, the
      salt springs near the Muskingum River, and in the military
      tract, with the sections of land which include the same,
      shall be granted to the said State, for the use of the
      people thereof, the same to be used under such terms, and
      conditions, and regulations, as the Legislature of the said
      State shall direct, provided the said Legislature shall
      never sell nor lease the same for a longer period than ten
      years:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 8, nays 18, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Brown, Dwight Foster, Howard, J. Mason,
      Morris, Ogden, Olcott, and Tracy.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge,
      Clinton, Dayton, Ellery, T. Foster, Franklin, Jackson,
      Logan, S. T. Mason, Nicholas, Stone, Sumter, Wells, White,
      and Wright.

And the bill being further amended, it was ordered to the third reading
as amended.


THURSDAY, April 29.

Mr. S. T. MASON presented the petition of David Brown, of Massachusetts,
praying compensation for his sufferings while imprisoned under sentence
of the judicial court, for seditious practices; and the petition was
read, and ordered to lie on the table.


FRIDAY, April 30.

Mr. TRACY, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 29th instant,
the bill to carry into effect a resolution of Congress for erecting a
monument to the memory of the late General David Wooster, reported
amendments; which were read, and ordered to lie for consideration.

_Case of John Cleves Symmes and his land purchase in Ohio._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on
the petition of John Cleves Symmes, which was adopted, as follows:

      1. That, in the year 1788, the petitioner entered into a
      contract with the United States, upon a fair consideration,
      for the purchase of one million of acres of land in the
      North-western Territory.

      2. That, in consequence of such contract, the petitioner
      made a settlement upon the tract, and sold many parcels
      thereof to adventurers, who went together with him into
      that new country, and located themselves there.

      3. That, in the year 1794, the petitioner obtained a
      patent, under the authority of a law which enabled the
      President of the United States to make the same, for such
      proportion of the one million of acres, which had at that
      time been paid for, pursuant to the said contract,
      amounting to 311,682 acres of the said million of acres of
      land.

      4. That the petitioner, after the said in part fulfilment
      of the contract on the side of both the parties to the
      same, proceeded to make sales (as he before had done in
      respect to the lands for which he had lately received the
      patent, as above mentioned) in the residue of the one
      million of acres, expecting to make the title when he
      should receive his patent thereof, agreeably to his
      contract, as he had before practised.

      5. That no authority has been given by law, or otherwise,
      that can be found by your committee, whereby the said
      contract can be carried into execution on behalf of the
      United States, upon the payment of the sums further
      stipulated to be paid by the petitioner, agreeably to his
      contract, whereby he is entitled to a patent, upon payment
      of such stipulated sums; which payments the petitioner
      avers he always has been, and still is, ready to pay and
      perform, as thereunto required by his contract.

      6. That your committee, from the papers and documents laid
      before them by the petitioner, or from the statement which
      he has made, do not perceive that the petitioner has done
      any one act, or omitted to do any act whereby he has
      forfeited any right to the full benefit of his contract
      before stated.

      7. That no authority exists, by law, enabling any person to
      carry into execution the said contract on behalf of the
      United States; but, on the contrary, that two laws have
      been passed predicated upon the idea that the obligations
      of the United States, under the said contract, have ceased
      and determined; under the operation of which laws the said
      petitioner states, and your committee believe, that the
      said petitioner is suffering very great hardships, tending
      to the utter destruction and total waste of his whole
      property.

      8. Your committee, the premises considered, beg leave to
      recommend the adoption of the resolution accompanying this
      report:

      _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to direct the Attorney General to examine into
      the contract entered into between the United States and
      John Cleves Symmes, Esq., and others, bearing date on the
      15th of October, 1788, and all the contracts and laws
      relative thereto; and all the transactions which may
      legally or equitably affect the same, as far as they may
      come to his knowledge; and to make a report of the same to
      the Senate at their next session, together with his opinion
      whether the said John Cleves Symmes has any claims, and
      what, upon the United States, in virtue of the said
      contract, or any other contract, or law predicated upon the
      same: and that the further consideration of the petition of
      said John Cleves Symmes, Esq., of and concerning the
      premises, be postponed to the first day of the next session
      of Congress.

And the report was adopted.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.

The resolution of the House of Representatives, authorizing the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
to adjourn their respective Houses on Saturday the first day of May, was
read.

The bill, entitled "An act making appropriations for the Military
Establishment of the United States in the year one thousand eight
hundred and two," was read the third time and passed.

The bill, entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of
Government for the year one thousand eight hundred and two," was read
the third time.


_Resolved_, That this bill do pass as amended.

The bill making an appropriation for the support of the Navy of the
United States, for the year one thousand eight hundred and two, was read
the third time as amended.

On motion to strike out the third section, agreed to yesterday, it
passed in the affirmative--yeas 12, nays 11, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brown, Dwight Foster, Howard,
      Morris, Nicholas, Ogden, Olcott, Tracy, Wells, White, and
      Wright.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Breckenridge, Clinton,
      Cocke, Ellery, Franklin, Logan, S. T. Mason, Stone, and
      Sumter.

_Resolved_, That this bill do pass with the amendments.

The bill, entitled "An act to provide for the establishment of certain
districts, and therein to amend an act, entitled 'An act to regulate the
collection of duties on imports and tonnage, and for other purposes,'"
was read the third time, and passed with an amendment.

Mr. BRADLEY, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 6th and 7th
instant, the petition of Elijah Brainard, also the petition of Jonathan
Snowden, reported that the consideration of said petitions be severally
postponed to the next session of Congress, and that the committee to
whom the same were referred be discharged, and the report was adopted.

Mr. S. T. MASON, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 29th
instant, the bill to incorporate the inhabitants of the City of
Washington in the District of Columbia, reported amendments; which were
read, and ordered to lie for consideration.

On motion, it was

_Ordered_, That the bill for the better security of public money and
property in the hands of public officers and agents, as amended by the
House of Representatives, be postponed to the next session of Congress.

Mr. S. T. MASON, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 29th
instant, the bill additional to, and amendatory of, an act, entitled "An
act concerning the District of Columbia;" reported amendments which
were read, and ordered to lie for consideration.


MONDAY EVENING, 7-1/2 o'clock, May 3.

_Adjournment._

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have appointed a committee on their part, with such as the Senate
may appoint, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify
him that, unless he hath any further communications to make to the two
Houses of Congress, they are ready to adjourn, and they desire the
appointment of a committee on the part of the Senate.

The Senate took into consideration the resolution of the House of
Representatives appointing a committee, jointly, with such as the Senate
may appoint, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and notify
him of the proposed adjournment of the two Houses of Congress; and

_Resolved_, That they do concur therein, and that Messrs. ELLERY and
CLINTON be the committee on the part of the Senate.

Mr. ELLERY, from the joint committee, reported that they had waited on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to the vote of the two
Houses, and that he informed them he had no further business to
communicate.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary notify to the House of Representatives
that the Senate, having completed the business of the session, are ready
to adjourn.

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.

Whereupon, the Senate adjourned to the first Monday in December next.




SEVENTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, December 7, 1801.

This being the day appointed by the constitution for the annual meeting
of Congress, the following members of the House of Representatives
appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House,
to wit:

      _From New Hampshire._--Abiel Foster, George P. Upham, and
      Samuel Tenney.

      _From Massachusetts._--William Eustis, John Bacon, Phanuel
      Bishop, Joseph B. Varnum, Richard Cutts, Lemuel Williams,
      William Shepard, Ebenezer Mattoon, Nathan Read, Josiah
      Smith, and Manasseh Cutler.

      _From Rhode Island._--Thomas Tillinghast, and Joseph
      Stanton, jr.

      _From Connecticut._--Roger Griswold, Samuel W. Dana, John
      Davenport, Calvin Goddard, Benjamin Tallmadge, Elias
      Perkins, and John C. Smith.

      _From Vermont._--Israel Smith.

      _From New York._--Samuel L. Mitchill, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Theodorus Bailey, John Smith, Benjamin Walker, Thomas
      Morris, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Lucas Elmendorph, David
      Thomas, and John P. Van Ness.

      _From New Jersey._--John Condit, James Mott, William Helms,
      Henry Southard, and Ebenezer Elmer.

      _From Pennsylvania._--William Jones, Michael Leib, John
      Smilie, William Hoge, Isaac Vanhorne, Joseph Heister,
      Robert Brown, Henry Woods, John A. Hanna, John Stewart,
      Thomas Boude, and Joseph Hemphill.

      _From Delaware._--James A. Bayard.

      _From Maryland._--John Archer, Joseph H. Nicholson, Samuel
      Smith, Richard Sprigg, John Dennis, and Thomas Plater.

      _From Virginia._--Thomas Newton, jr., John Randolph, jr.,
      George Jackson, Philip R. Thompson, John Taliaferro, John
      Stratton, William B. Giles, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
      Anthony New, John Smith, David Holmes, Richard Brent, Edwin
      Gray, and Matthew Clay.

      _From Kentucky._--Thomas T. Davis, and John Fowler.

      _From North Carolina._--Nathaniel Macon, Willis Alston,
      Richard Stanford, Charles Johnson, Archibald Henderson, and
      John Stanley.

      _From Tennessee._--William Dickson.

      _From South Carolina._--Thomas Sumter, Thomas Moore, and
      Thomas Lowndes.

      _From Georgia._--John Milledge.

      _From the North-west Territory._--Paul Fearing.

      _From Mississippi Territory._--Narsworthy Hunter.

A quorum, consisting of a majority, 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
NATHANIEL MACON, one of the Representatives for the State of North
Carolina: Whereupon, Mr. MACON was conducted to the chair, and he made
his acknowledgments to the House as follows:

      "GENTLEMEN: Accept my sincere thanks for the honor you have
      conferred on me, in the choice just made. The duties of the
      chair will be undertaken with great diffidence indeed; but
      it shall be my constant endeavor to discharge them with
      fidelity and impartiality."

The House proceeded, in the same manner, to the appointment of a Clerk;
and, upon examining the ballots, a majority of the whole House was found
in favor of JOHN BECKLEY.

The oath to support the Constitution of the United States, as prescribed
by law, was then administered by Mr. GRISWOLD, one of the
Representatives for the State of Connecticut, to the SPEAKER; and then
the same oath, or affirmation, was administered, by Mr. SPEAKER, to each
of the members present.

A message from the Senate informed the House 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 the honorable ABRAHAM BALDWIN,
President of the Senate, _pro tempore_.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that a
quorum of this House is assembled, and have elected NATHANIEL MACON, one
of the Representatives of the State of North Carolina, their Speaker,
and are ready to proceed to business; and that the Clerk of this House
do go with the said message.

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, and, also, a unanimous vote in favor of
THOMAS CLAXTON, and THOMAS DUNN, severally, the former as Doorkeeper,
and the latter as Assistant Doorkeeper.

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 a quorum of the two Houses is
assembled, and ready to receive any communications he may think proper
to make to them.

Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, 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 performed that
service, and that the PRESIDENT signified to them that he would make a
communication to this House, to-morrow, by message.


TUESDAY, December 8.

Several other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, ANDREW GREGG; from
Virginia, SAMUEL J. CABELL; from North Carolina, JAMES HOLLAND; and from
South Carolina, WILLIAM BUTLER; 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.

A petition of John McDonald, late of the city of Philadelphia, was
presented to the House and read, praying that he may be employed to
superintend the arrangement and safe-keeping of the books intended for
the library of the two Houses of Congress; and that he may receive such
compensation for his services, in that capacity, as to the wisdom of
Congress shall seem meet.

_Ordered_, That the said petition be referred to the committee appointed
yesterday, on the part of this House, jointly with the committee
appointed by the Senate, to take into consideration a statement made by
the Secretary of the Senate, respecting books and maps purchased
pursuant to a late act of Congress, and to make report respecting the
future arrangement of the same.

The following committees were appointed pursuant to the standing rules
and orders of the House, viz:

_Committee of Elections._--Mr. MILLEDGE, Mr. TENNEY, Mr. CONDIT, Mr.
DENNIS, Mr. HANNA, Mr. STANLEY, and Mr. JOHN TALIAFERRO.

_Committee of Revised and Unfinished Business._--Mr. DAVENPORT, Mr.
CLAY, and Mr. ALSTON.

_Committee of Claims._--JOHN COTTON SMITH, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HOLMES, Mr.
MATTOON, Mr. JOHN SMITH, of New York, Mr. PLATER, and Mr. MOORE.

_Committee of Commerce and Manufactures._--Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, Mr. EUSTIS,
Mr. DANA, Mr. MITCHILL, Mr. JONES, Mr. NEWTON, and Mr. LOWNDES.

_Resolved_, That a standing Committee of Ways and Means be appointed,
whose duty it shall be to take into consideration all such reports of
the Treasury Department, and all such propositions, relative to the
revenue, as may be referred to them by the House; to inquire into the
state of the public debt, of the revenue, and of the expenditures; and
to report, from time to time, their opinion thereon.

_Ordered_, That Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. GRISWOLD, Mr. ISRAEL SMITH, Mr.
BAYARD, Mr. SMILIE, Mr. READ, Mr. NICHOLSON, Mr. VAN RENSSELAER, and Mr.
DICKSON, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the said resolution.


WEDNESDAY, December 9.

Another member, to wit, JOHN CAMPBELL, from Maryland, appeared, produced
his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.


THURSDAY, December 10.

Mr. ELMENDORPH, from the committee to whom was referred, on the eighth
instant, a letter from THOMAS CLAXTON, the Doorkeeper of this House,
relative to certain expenditures, and further assistance necessary to be
allowed for enabling him to execute the duties of his station, made a
report; which was read and considered: Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That THOMAS CLAXTON be, and is hereby, authorized to employ,
under his immediate direction, one additional assistant, two servants,
and two horses, for the purpose of performing such services and duties
as are usually required by the House of Representatives, during the
present session, and for four days thereafter; and the sum of five
dollars and seventy-five cents per day be allowed to him for that
purpose; and that he be paid therefor out of the fund appropriated for
the contingent expenses of the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have
proceeded to the appointment of a Chaplain to Congress, on their part,
and the Rev. Mr. GANTT has been duly elected.


FRIDAY, December 11.

Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, JOSEPH PEIRCE; from
Massachusetts, PELEG WADSWORTH; from Virginia, THOMAS CLAIBORNE and JOHN
CLOPTON; and, from North Carolina, WILLIAM H. HILL, appeared, produced
their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats in the House.


MONDAY, December 14.

Another member, to wit, LEWIS R. MORRIS, from the State of Vermont,
appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in
the House.


TUESDAY, December 15.

_Barbary Powers._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the State of
the Union, the following resolution being under consideration:

      "_Resolved_, That it is expedient that the President be
      authorized by law, further and more effectually to protect
      the commerce of the United States against the Barbary
      Powers."

Mr. NICHOLSON said, that when this resolution was yesterday laid on the
table, he had moved, for reasons that he had assigned, to strike out the
words "further and more." He was, on reflection, more and more persuaded
of the accuracy of his objections to the unqualified terms of the
original motion. If we adopt it, we pledge ourselves to increase the
naval force at present at the disposition of the President. But if his
modification were agreed to, every gentleman would remain at liberty to
put his own construction on the words "effectual force." Uninformed as
we were as to the necessity of increasing the force, it would be highly
improper to commit ourselves by any precipitate decision. He, therefore,
moved to strike out the words "further and more."

Mr. GILES opposed the striking out the words, which, in his opinion, did
not relate to the quantum of force placed under Executive disposition,
but to the measures proposed to be taken by the Executive. He should
vote for the motion unamended, though he had been, and still was, as
averse as any gentleman in that House to an improper augmentation of the
Army or Navy. With respect to the Navy, he was friendly to it as it now
stood, or to an augmentation of it to meet any particular emergency.

Mr. S. SMITH said that as he understood the resolution, it went not to
pledge any man to augment the Navy, but to authorize the President, with
the present force, to take measures for the defence of our trade. We
were at war with Tripoli. Against that power, therefore, the President
felt himself at liberty to act efficiently. But gentlemen should advert
to our situation with regard to Algiers and Tunis. Those powers may
become hostile. They may become so in the recess of Congress. It may be
necessary without delay to protect our trade against them. Will you then
confine the President, in relation to these powers, to a Peace
Establishment? Certainly, when these circumstances were duly weighed, no
gentleman will refuse the power which this resolution is intended to
confer.

Mr. SMILIE was in favor of the amendment for one reason. He was ready at
all times to grant commerce every necessary protection. But by adopting
this resolution, we pledge ourselves, without inquiring into the
necessity, to extend further protection. No doubt further protection
will be required. But he thought it premature to make any pledge until
all the documents connected with the subject were before the House.

Mr. MITCHILL suggested the propriety of amending the original resolution
by inserting after the word "law," "if necessary." This would render the
resolution conditional. To the resolution he was a friend. For when the
aspect and extent of the United States were considered, it must be
evident to every man that we were a commercial people. The bulk and
extensiveness of our produce required vessels to carry it to foreign
countries. The carriage required protection. The Government must of
course give protection. With respect to the Mediterranean expedition, no
plan under the Government had been better devised; and he had no
hesitation to say, that if the Mediterranean trade required further
protection, he would be for making further appropriations of the public
moneys.

Mr. NICHOLSON said he could not agree to the suggestion of the gentleman
from New York, as by adopting it we should do nothing. How does the
matter now stand? Congress has put into the hands of the President six
frigates, which he had used for the public service in the Mediterranean.
This was not a fit time to express his opinion on the propriety of the
measures of the Executive. But when a fit occasion did offer, he would
have no hesitation to say the President had done right.

To return to the point--The President had now six frigates. If we agree
to the resolution, do we not pledge ourselves to increase this force?

One squadron had been sent to the Mediterranean; another was in
operation to go there, he understood. This was all right. But there
followed no necessity from these circumstances to pledge ourselves to
increase the force.

We were not even acquainted with the sentiments of the President on this
point. His communications did not inform us that he desired a larger
force. If he did desire it, he would say so. He had, on the contrary,
recommended a reduction of the Army and Navy; and to desire an
augmentation of the latter, would be, in the same breath, to say one
thing and mean another.

Mr. EUSTIS.--The President, in his communications, has informed us that
he has hitherto acted on the defensive. The simple question now is,
whether he shall be empowered to take offensive steps. This has no
relation, therefore, to an increase of the force; nor shall we, by
adopting it, pledge ourselves to such effect.

Mr. GILES was happy that the discussion was one more of words than of
principles. He perfectly coincided with the gentleman from Maryland, who
had moved the amendment, in his general sentiments. It would be wrong in
this House prematurely to pledge itself for an increase of naval force.
But the words of the resolution do not relate to the quantum of force,
but entirely to the measures to be taken with any force. When the
President is authorized further and more effectually to protect our
trade, it was not said that we will give him four or six additional
frigates; but merely that he is to have means, more or less, which shall
be adequate to make offensive operations against those who shall make
offensive operations against us.

It was well understood that he was for keeping the Navy within proper
bounds; but if ever there was a case where it was required, this was the
case, and he acknowledged that he was for empowering the President to
authorize not merely a dismantlement of a vessel, but her capture.

The question was then taken on Mr. NICHOLSON'S amendment and lost.

When the original motion of Mr. SMITH was carried.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said
resolution; and that Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, Mr. DANA, Mr.
MITCHILL, and Mr. JONES, do prepare and bring in the same.


WEDNESDAY, December 16.

Another member, to wit, BENJAMIN HUGER, from South Carolina, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Ratio of Representation._

The House, according to the order of the day, proceeded to consider the
first resolution reported yesterday from the Committee of the whole
House on the state of the Union, in the words following, to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That the apportionment of Representatives
      amongst the several States, according to the second
      enumeration of the people, ought to be in a ratio of one
      Representative for every thirty-three thousand persons in
      each State."

Mr. GRISWOLD remarked, that the effect of adopting this resolution would
be an increase of members in that House; that the number would amount to
nearly one hundred and fifty. He was of opinion that the present House
was sufficiently numerous for every correct purpose, as well of
legislation, as for obtaining all desirable information from the people.
Should an augmentation be made, the consequences would be an increase of
expense, and business would inevitably be protracted. He moved,
therefore, to strike out the words "thirty-three," meaning, if they were
stricken out, to propose the substitution of a larger number.

On this motion a desultory debate ensued, in which Messrs. GRISWOLD, S.
SMITH, NICHOLSON, GILES, BAYARD, ALSTON, ELMER, EUSTIS, SPRIGG, and
other gentlemen, took part.

Mr. GRISWOLD stood alone in advocating an apportionment of one member to
every 40,000 persons.

Messrs. GILES and BAYARD were for one member for every 30,000.

Messrs. S. SMITH, NICHOLSON, and EUSTIS, were for one member for 33,000.

Mr. ALSTON was in favor of one representative for every 31,000.

The preferences avowed by the several speakers, appeared to arise from
the application of that divisor to the State from which each member
came, which left the least fraction.

Some gentlemen, however, declared, and particularly Mr. GILES, that he
had made no calculation, and that his preference of the smallest ratio
proposed was the preference of principle.

Those in favor of a small ratio argued that, though the expense
attending the compensation of the members might be somewhat increased,
yet that it would be trifling compared with the great advantages that
would result from a larger representation; that such a representation
would be productive of true economy, as it would oppose all extravagant
expenditure of money; that the weight of expense incurred by the
Government, did not arise from the expense of the civil list, which
formed but a speck in the mass of expenditure; that it was important to
this Government to adopt those measures which would ensure the respect
and the confidence of the people; that this end would be best attained
by each Representative being familiarly acquainted with the interests of
his constituents; and that this could only be the case when the number
of his constituents were limited within certain bounds. It was true that
it had been said that a body of more than one hundred, even though it be
composed of philosophers, was a mob; but it was replied that the long
experience of this country had proved the reverse, for that many of the
State Legislatures consisted of more members.

These ideas were but feebly opposed. The diversity of opinion expressed
chiefly arose from a division of the House on the ratios of thirty
thousand and thirty-three thousand. The former was advocated principally
from a regard to Delaware and Rhode Island, which, by its adoption,
would have each two Representatives instead of one, if a higher ratio
were preferred.

During the discussion, it was moved to strike out the word "three;"
leaving thirty thousand as the ratio. This motion was lost--yeas 43,
nays 46.

Mr. BAYARD then moved to strike out "thirty-three," leaving the
resolution blank, in order that it might be filled up with such number
as should be agreeable to the House.

This motion was opposed chiefly by Mr. NICHOLSON and Mr. EUSTIS, who
were of opinion that the progressive increase of the members would be
sufficiently large on the ratio of thirty-three thousand persons to a
member. They were also further in favor of this number as it left the
fewest fractions. The only two States much injured by it would be
Delaware and North Carolina; whereas, if the ratio was increased to
thirty-five thousand, New Jersey would have a fraction of 31,000;
Delaware of 26,000; Maryland of 30,000; Georgia of 23,000; and Kentucky
of 29,000.

On the question being taken for striking out "thirty-three," there rose
only thirty-one members. It was therefore declared to be lost.

The question was then taken on the original motion, and carried without
a division, and a committee of three members appointed to bring in a
bill conformably thereto.


THURSDAY, December 17.

Another member, to wit, DANIEL HEISTER, from Maryland, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.


FRIDAY, December 18.

_Public Printing._

Mr. RANDOLPH, chairman of the committee appointed to see what
alterations were necessary to expedite the printing business of the
House, reported that the committee thought it expedient to request the
Heads of the Departments to attend and inspect the printing of all such
documents, reports, and statements, as are directed by law to be
annually laid before the House; and that it was necessary that a printer
to the House be appointed, who shall be responsible for the faithful and
prompt execution of all business confided to him by order of the House.

Mr. GRISWOLD wished the report altered to a resolution; to the first
part of it he should agree, but doubted whether the latter part would be
concurred in. He did not think it sufficient or expedient to appoint but
one; the business would require more, particularly at the close of the
session. He could see no reason for altering the mode in which the
printing business was now and had ever been done; it now lies with the
Clerk, who is empowered to employ as many persons as he pleases or deems
expedient. If such printer should be appointed, he will become an
officer of the House; he will not be responsible to the Speaker. We have
officers enough already; it is needless to multiply.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, the committee had considered these objections; but,
he believed, sufficient reasons might be offered to convince the House
of the expediency of this measure. If one be appointed, he will know his
duty and be prepared; he will employ as many hands as he wishes. Had
there been one appointed by the House last session, he would have been
on the spot now, fully prepared promptly to execute the orders of the
House; nor should we have such delay as that by which we are now
unfortunately troubled.

Mr. NICHOLSON.--We have but few printers in this vicinity, nor is it
probable their number will be soon increased. The printing for the House
is said to be worth $4,000 per annum; if one be appointed for that
purpose, he will have every thing in readiness, and be responsible for
his faithful duty.

Mr. S. SMITH thought a printer thus appointed might perform a
considerable part of his duty previous to each session; to many
documents he might attend. Mr. S. wished such printer appointed as a
permanent officer.

Mr. LOWNDES.--If he thought such officer necessary he should not oppose
the measure, but at present he did not think such appointment necessary.
He conceived the Clerk to be responsible to the House; that it was his
duty to attend to the printing; that he could employ whom and as many as
he pleased. Whence, then, the necessity of such appointment? Besides,
such printer will become an officer of this House, must have a salary,
and will be called the printer of the House: and, if printer of a paper,
whatever sentiments might be advanced in such paper would perhaps be
considered as the sentiments of the House.

Mr. EUSTIS considered it altogether unnecessary, disadvantageous, and
troublesome.

The first was carried: that relating to the appointment of a printer not
carried; about twenty only rising in favor of it.

_Apportionment Bill._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for
the apportionment of Representatives among the several States, according
to the second enumeration.

Mr. MACON (Speaker) moved to strike out "thirty-three," the ratio fixed
by the bill, for the purpose of inserting "thirty."

Mr. M. observed that it did not appear, from the different ideas
expressed by different gentlemen, that any material inconvenience would
result from the increased number of members that would be created by the
ratio of thirty thousand being adopted. Whereas on the ground of
principle a great benefit would flow from it. In his opinion, to secure
the confidence of the people in the Government, it was essential to
lessen the districts as much as possible, that the elector might know
the elected. At present, particularly in North Carolina, they were so
large that a voter depended more upon the opinions of others than upon
his own information. The ratio of thirty thousand would not introduce
into the House more than one hundred and sixty members, which number did
not equal that of the members in several of the State Legislatures, of
which no complaints had been made, and from which no inconvenience had
arisen. He felt particularly for Delaware, which would be severely
affected by the ratio in the bill.

Mr. GILES hoped the motion would obtain. As far as respected the State
of Virginia, he felt little or no anxiety. But he, on general
principles, preferred the smallest ratio. It was an essential principle
of a Republican Government that the people voting should know whom they
vote for; that the elector should be well acquainted with the elected.
To ensure this effect the districts should be small. He was aware of the
impossibility of reaching this point precisely: but it was our duty to
approach it as nearly as possible. Though, in relation to the situation
of Delaware, he did not subscribe fully to the ideas of some gentlemen,
as the case was an extreme one, and he knew the impropriety of relying
upon such cases, as the reasoning from an extreme generally led to an
extreme, yet he thought the relative circumstances of Delaware and
Virginia, as stated, to be correct; for it was a fact that Virginia,
entitled to twenty-two Representatives, was not so much affected by any
given fraction, as Delaware, entitled to but one Representative.

But the reply to the inequality of her representation here is, that she
has two Representatives in the Senate; and it is inferred that she will
hence derive a larger weight in the Union. Such was the theory of the
thing. But what was the result of experience? Mr. G. said, he had once
supposed that the small States would have an undue advantage over the
large States. His opinion had since altered. All the small States were
surrounded and compressed by large States, and derived their political
sympathies from them. It was true, the small States had each two votes
in the Senate. Yet, what superior advantage have they in the Government
generally? He was, therefore, clearly of opinion that the claims of the
small States to the largest representation that could be
constitutionally given them, ought not to be affected by their
representation in the Senate. The fact was that this House was the basis
of confidence in the Government. We had heard much about an alarm, about
disorganization, and the disposition of large States to swallow up the
rights of all the other States. He would ask, whether the adoption of a
large ratio would lessen this clamor, promote the general confidence,
and increase the stability of the Government?

Mr. JONES hoped the amendment would prevail. There was not a doubt but
that the small States would be materially affected by the ratio in the
bill. It was true, that, according to the theory of our Government, the
members of that House did not represent the States. But, what was the
fact? In truth, our representation was that of absolute locality. Can I,
said Mr. J., represent as effectually Massachusetts, or Vermont, as
Pennsylvania?

Mr. VAN NESS declared himself to be uninfluenced by local
considerations, or particular inconveniences. If we attempted to avoid
them by the adoption of any ratio, we should be mistaken. The inequality
of States could not be remedied. If a remedy was sought, it must be
found in the Senate. The large States had not that exclusive weight
which had been stated. If the number of the large States in this House
should overbear the smaller States, they would find their protection in
the Senate. The fractional loss, so much dwelt on, was not a loss to the
State, it was only a loss to that part of the State which was
unrepresented, and the loss would be the same to a larger State, if its
unrepresented fraction was equally great.

Mr. V. N. said, it had always been his desire to consult the wishes of
the people and to conform to them. He considered those wishes as
solemnly expressed in the constitution, which had decided that the ratio
should not be less than thirty thousand, and in the law passed
immediately after the adoption of the constitution, fixing the ratio at
thirty-three thousand.

As to the experience of the State, so often appealed to, he would state
that of his own. The constitution of New York originally fixed the
representation in one branch at three hundred, and in the other at one
hundred and fifty. After suffering the inconveniences of so large a
legislative body, a convention had been called, which reduced the one
branch to one hundred and fifty, and the other to thirty-two members.

It was the opinion of some gentlemen that the essential principle of our
Government was the equal representation of the States in the Senate.
This was a mistaken opinion. The federalism of the Government might have
been as well preserved by an unequal representation in the Senate. The
feature was not the offspring of principle, but of concession. If we
looked to antiquity, we would observe the smaller States of a
Confederation always inferior to the larger; and he recollected one case
of a Confederation, in which one State was entitled to three, another to
two, and the third to one representative.

Mr. SMILIE heartily concurred in opinion with the gentleman from New
York, that we ought not to respect local feelings, but that we ought to
go upon general grounds. Possessing these principles, we still know how
difficult it is to do complete justice. For himself he would be
satisfied with the ratio of thirty-three, if he could not obtain that of
thirty thousand. He was in favor of a large representation, because he
relied on that for safety and economy. For, when he considered the great
powers of the other branches of the Government, (powers, in the opinion
of some men, too great,) he thought it was their duty to impart to that
House all the constitutional power that could be conferred. This would
enable the House to resist all encroachments attempted to be made upon
it.

Mr. BACON said that, for himself, he was satisfied with the present
ratio, as it stood in the bill. This was the ratio which had been
adopted when our numbers were much less than they now are; that it did
not appear but that it had given general satisfaction; and that no other
inconveniences had accrued than such as might be expected to follow from
the adoption of any other ratio whatever. It would seem to be rather
unnatural, and the reverse of what was contemplated by those who enacted
the constitution, as our numbers increase, to lessen the ratio of
representation. He was, therefore, against striking out the number
thirty-three, with a view to insert a lower number.

A divisor of thirty-three thousand would now give a House consisting of
at least one hundred and forty members, which, even on the present
ratio, must soon become not only too expensive, but unwieldy. It had
been repeatedly urged that the present ratio leaves a very large
fraction to the State of Delaware. This, it was admitted, was matter of
regret; but that, let what ratio might be adopted, such fractional
parts must be expected to fall somewhere; that such fractions would be
likely to vary, from time to time, and shift from State to State, as the
population may increase and vary in the several States. And Mr. B. did
not conceive that the particular case of Delaware, hard as it might
seem, furnished a sufficient reason for altering an entire system.

As to what had been urged of the disadvantage to which Electors were
subjected in large districts, of not knowing the characters of their
Representatives and candidates, Mr. B. observed that this was a
disadvantage which was lessening with rapidity from year to year, and
from one election to another; that to whatever inconvenience electors
may heretofore have been subjected by the want of a knowledge of their
candidate, from this inconvenience they are already in a great measure
relieved; and it must, in a very short time, entirely cease to exist. If
any inconvenience of this kind still remains, by an election or two
more, it would be entirely removed. It had been urged that Delaware had
but one Representative, and every State ought to have two. But, why two,
Mr. B. queried, rather than three? It is true, that two are better than
one; and three are better than either one or two; for, as we have long
since been told, "a three-fold cord is not easily broken."

Mr. B. concluded by saying that, as thirty-three thousand was the ratio
which had been adopted when our population was much less than it now is;
and as it has been practised upon without any inconvenience or general
dissatisfaction, he was unwilling to risk the uncertain consequences of
an innovation at this particular time.

Mr. T. MORRIS was of opinion that the arguments drawn from the
representation in the Senate had nothing to do with this question. The
House had a constitutional duty to perform, that was highly interesting.
The only question is, How it shall be performed? The people ought to be
fully represented; that is, the number of their representatives should
be increased until that number became inconvenient for the transaction
of business. He had never been a friend to an enormous Legislature; such
as that in France, a mob convention. He thought the idea incorrect that
this House should acquire a weight that might cause it to bear down the
other branch of the Legislature. He hoped, if any such attempt should be
made, that body would have sufficient spirit to resist it; and he
trusted there would always be firmness enough here to resist any
encroachment attempted.

As to the present ratio guiding, he did not think that the House should
be governed by any uniform rule. They ought, on the contrary, to be
governed by the existing circumstances. Not believing that any
inconvenience would arise from the augmented representation on the ratio
of thirty thousand, he would be in favor of it from the reasons he had
assigned.

Mr. DENNIS did not rise to say any thing new on the subject; but merely,
as he had altered his mind since the business was before the House, to
assign some of the reasons which had influenced him. He was now in favor
of the ratio of thirty thousand. His first impressions were against it
from an apprehension that the increased numbers of the House would
increase expense, and produce disorder. But he acknowledged himself
convinced by the arguments which had fallen from the gentleman from
Virginia, which he thought counterbalanced his previous apprehension.
Mr. D. thought it all-important to preserve an equilibrium between the
different departments of the Government, and he was convinced that this
would be best effected by making the representation in this House as
large as the constitution permitted, and convenience justified. If we
expected to retain the confidence of the people, it was necessary to
increase the Representative branch; for it would be in vain to look for
that confidence necessary to give it a proper portion of energy, unless
there existed a sympathy between the elector and the elected.

Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the amendment would not obtain. The difference
between the effects of the two ratios was not very important; but it was
highly important that a doctrine so heretical and improper as that which
had been avowed, should be exploded on its first annunciation. He meant
that doctrine which considered this House as the Representatives of the
people. When the constitution was formed, two great difficulties
presented themselves. The large States refused to confer on the
Government greater powers than those it enjoyed, which deeply affected
their wealth and their numbers, unless, according to the ratio of their
numbers, they should participate in the administration of it; while the
smaller States withheld their concurrence, unless their sovereignties
were guarantied and protected. These two difficulties were surmounted by
the plan of the present constitution; according to which the members of
this House were the Representatives, not of the people, but of the
States in proportion to their numbers. This was the theory of the
Government for which he must contend.

Mr. R. believed that the strongest objection urged against the adoption
of the constitution, was, that it tended to a consolidation of the
States. But when he looked into it with a Federal eye, (and with no
other eye could he ever look at it,) he saw the State sovereignties in
all its parts acknowledged and protected. Of this, the very bill was
itself a proof. For the apportionment was not among the people, but
among the States, according to the numbers of each. Believing that this
House is the representative of States, it was his opinion that so long
as the relative weight of States could be preserved, it was immaterial
that each State should be represented by a large number of members.

It was with extreme regret, and some diffidence, Mr. R. said, that he
differed from his colleague on this subject. His colleague wished to
increase the House to such an extent as to make it the depository of the
whole confidence of the people. Mr. R. wished it to possess that
confidence so far as related to Federal objects, but no further.
Increase it, according to the theory of gentlemen, make it in point of
numbers, a British Parliament, or a French convention, and you will
proportionably diminish the confidence of the people in the State
governments. They will become feeble barriers against the powers of the
General Government; and the people will inquire for what purpose they
elect their State Legislatures. Mr. R. believed it to be of infinite
importance that the poises of the Government should be preserved; that
it should confine itself to Federal objects. His object, therefore, was
to preserve on that floor the proportionate weight between the several
States which the constitution had fixed.

Had any objection been made to the old Congress under the Confederation,
that was federally organized, for the want of talents or integrity? No.
The only objection was, that they wanted power. Had the public affairs
been conducted with less ability than they are at present? He had
neither heard, nor did he believe that they had.

Mr. R. concluded, by making some remarks on the score of convenience,
similar to those already stated.

Mr. MITCHILL, in a speech of some length, supported the ratio of thirty
thousand.

Mr. S. SMITH felt indifferent whether the ratio of thirty-three, or that
of thirty thousand, were adopted; but felt anxious that justice should
be done to the State of Maryland. He understood that radical errors
existed in the numbers given to that State; that in Harford County there
were returned only three thousand slaves, whereas there ought to have
been returned eighteen thousand; and that in Cecil there had been
returned nine thousand, instead of fifteen thousand. He hoped, in order
to have these errors corrected, the committee would rise, that the
original returns in the office of State might be examined.

This motion gave rise to a conversation of some length, in which on one
side the impropriety and injustice of making an apportionment under the
existing errors, and without the return from Tennessee, were argued;
and, on the other side, the great inconvenience of delay, and the
inability of the House to obtain a correction of errors, which, if
attempted in one instance, might be attempted in many.

Mr. VAN NESS informed the committee that the return from Tennessee was
received at the office of State, and that it made the population of that
State amount to ninety-two thousand free inhabitants, and thirteen
thousand slaves.

It was ultimately agreed that the committee rise, report progress, and
ask leave to sit again; which was granted.


MONDAY, December 21.

_Georgia Limits, and Delegate from Mississippi._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
report of the Committee of Elections, to whom were referred the
credentials of Narsworthy Hunter, who has appeared as a Delegate from
the Territory of the United States known by the name of the Mississippi
Territory.

Mr. MILLEDGE spoke forcibly, and with considerable eloquence against
agreeing to the report of the committee; he said it was not a matter of
private but of general concern--that Georgia had jurisdiction over that
territory; to prove this, he called for the reading of the memorial of
Georgia to the Legislature of the Union.

[The memorial was extremely long, and was read but in part.]

Mr. M. insisted on the right of Georgia to the soil; he would assert to
that body and to the world that she had never given up that right; and
that therefore the laws that had been passed by Congress for the
government of that territory were void, and the gentleman elected as a
delegate to Congress by the Legislature of that territory had no right
to a seat in the House. Gentlemen might say what they please of the
expediency of Congress making laws for the government of that territory,
yet that expediency must yield to justice and to just claims; depriving
Georgia of her command over that soil and over the people of that soil,
was a glaring violation of right. Commissioners had been appointed to
settle the dispute between the United States and Georgia; those
commissioners are here, and probably it will not be long before those
claims are adjusted; he hoped and trusted no farther proceedings would
take place till the dispute was completely settled.

Mr. BAYARD.--The gentleman from Georgia appeared to mistake the object
of the report of the select committee; that committee was appointed to
examine the credentials of Mr. Hunter, and to see whether the
Legislature of the Mississippi territory had a right, by the law of
Congress regulating that government, to send a delegate, to exercise
here the right of debating, but not of voting; it was not to admit into
the Union a new State, or to erect a new State within the bounds of
another. The law of Congress, establishing the government of that
territory, declares that when in that territory there shall be such a
number of inhabitants, they shall have a House of Representatives and a
Legislature; and that when their inhabitants shall have increased to
such a number, the Legislature may appoint a delegate to Congress, with
the right of debating, but not of voting. It is not now a question
whether a new State shall be erected, but whether this member be duly
chosen. Nor are the interests of Georgia at all affected: the fifth
section of the law establishing this Government expressly declares that
nothing in the law for establishing a temporary government there, shall
in any manner affect any claims of the State of Georgia to that soil.
Commissioners are appointed on the part of the United States and Georgia
to settle the dispute between the two Governments; but till those
disputes shall be settled, shall the inhabitants of that territory be
without a government? No, sir, it is not a matter of discretion with us;
we are bound by a positive law of Congress. If the gentleman was urgent
against Mr. HUNTER'S taking his seat, the only way to effect it is, by
repealing the law of Congress establishing the Government of the
Mississippi Territory.

Mr. DAVIS.--The House have no business to meddle, in this case, with the
claims of the United States, or of Georgia, to that territory; we have
only to examine the credentials of the member, and to see whether the
Legislature, in conformity to the act of Congress, were authorized, or
not, to send a delegate. If that act of Congress be unconstitutional, it
must be repealed by the Senate and House; yet, as it now is, we are
bound to but one decision on this subject.

Mr. RANDOLPH.--He thought gentlemen did not treat the member from
Georgia with due candor and respect. It should be remembered that
Georgia had ever protested against the laws relative to the Mississippi
Territory. It was the duty of that gentleman, as a member from the State
of Georgia, to dissent; constructions might be put on silence. The
United States had arrogated the power of governing that territory, at
the same time saying that such assumption of power should not affect any
claims of Georgia; but did not this very assumption of a right to
govern, prejudge claims? We are told the commissioners are on the eve of
settling the dispute; let us wait till this be accomplished. Mr. R.
motioned that the committee rise.

Mr. CLAIBORNE.--He thought it right in the gentleman from Georgia to
dissent; it was to be expected; he did not rise to censure him. He did
not conceive that any gentleman in the House wished, in this matter, to
do any thing that would prejudice the interest or claims of Georgia. The
assumption of a power to give laws to the Mississippi Territory arose
from the necessity of the thing, and from benevolence to the
inhabitants; he would not suffer an infraction of the constitution for
the world; no, not to save a world. [The Chairman called him to order:
the question was now on the committee's rising.] Mr. C. said he did not
know but he might be out of order, but if he was, he believed others had
been in the same situation. He wished to express his opinions on the
subject in common with others. It should be considered that the delegate
from the Mississippi territory would have no right to vote, but only to
debate; he would be only a sting, but without poison. We ought,
moreover, to oblige our brethren of that Southern hemisphere; we ought
to hear their statements, attend to their wants, &c.

Mr. DANA.--He was for the committee's rising. It had been usual to
suffer the reports of the Committee of Elections to lie on the table,
and if no protest or complaint were entered, nothing further was done
with them, and the members kept their seats. In the case of the
North-western and Indiana Territories, they were obliged to inquire, if
it was the first time, whether there was a right to send a delegate;
such is the situation now of the member from the Mississippi Territory;
the records show their right to send, the report states that this
delegate is duly chosen. Let the report lie on the table, and the member
keep his seat.

Mr. GRISWOLD.--He was not in favor of the committee's rising. It was
extremely unpleasant to the delegate from the Mississippi Territory to
remain in this situation; he himself claimed a seat in that House, not
as a matter of favor but of right; and this House had not the power of
depriving him of this right, without repealing the act of Congress
establishing a government over that Territory. Some gentlemen have said
that the rights of Georgia will be affected by the admittance of this
member to a seat; such certainly could not be the case; if the claims of
Georgia are at all affected, it is done already by act of Congress; yet,
for his part, he did not consider the claims of Georgia as affected or
injured. Nor ought we to wait the decision of the commissioners: that
decision may take place in a month, and perhaps will not these six
months.

Mr. MACON.--There ought to be some petition or statement of facts
presented by the member from Georgia, or some other person, to justify a
discussion at this time, or to prevent the delegate from taking his
seat. He wished his right and his credentials treated as those of any
other member. He agreed with the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. DANA,)
that it were better for the committee to rise, without leave to sit
again; the member would then be entitled to his seat and his pay, till
it should be shown that he has no claim to them.

Mr. BAYARD.--He did not agree with the Speaker; the face of the report
of the select committee gives sufficient cause for a decision of the
Committee of the Whole. The gentleman from Georgia opposes the decision
of the select committee; and it is due to the member from Georgia, and
to the delegate, to have the opinion of the House--to have a prompt
decision. The mere question is, whether he has been duly elected; not
whether the Legislature of the Mississippi Territory had a right to
elect him. Gentlemen have said we are prejudicing the claims of Georgia,
that their rights are implicated in this step; they have said that the
act of Congress establishing a government was an assumption of power;
not so: by the Spanish treaty that territory was ceded to the United
States; the inhabitants were without a government; they petitioned
Congress for some form of government. What was to be done? The
interposition of Congress arose _ex necessitate rei_. It was no
assumption of power or assertion of claims. It was a necessary
establishment of a temporary government, to continue while there was
necessity. He was for an immediate decision.

Messrs. RANDOLPH, DAVIS, BAYARD, S. SMITH, MACON, and GRISWOLD,
continued the debate.

The report of the select committee was agreed to. Mr. MILLEDGE wished
the yeas and nays, even if he stood alone. They were taken, and stood,
yeas 77, nays 8.


TUESDAY, December 22.

Another member, to wit, JOHN RUTLEDGE, from South Carolina, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.


TUESDAY, December 29.

_Library of Congress._

Mr. RANDOLPH reported a "bill concerning the library for the use of both
Houses of Congress;" which, after being twice read, was committed to a
Committee of the whole House: Mr. RUTLEDGE in the chair.

The bill provided that the members of both Houses, the President and
Vice President of the United States, and the Judges of the Supreme
Court, should have liberty to take any book from the library to read.

Mr. SPRIGG moved, to add the Judges of the District of Columbia. He was
supported in argument by Mr. DENNIS, upon the ground of the importance
of the causes which this especial district would present, and the great
expense and extreme scarcity of some most valuable and necessary law
books.

Mr. BAYARD objected to the motion, because he could discover no reason
for distinguishing the judges of the district from others; but Judges of
the Supreme Court being far from their libraries, required such
references. He hoped the Congressional Library would never be subjected
to the abuse which books used in courts of justice were too liable to.

The motion was not agreed to.

Some observations were made as to the time which the library was to
remain open.

Mr. GRISWOLD moved to confine it to the time of the session of Congress.

It was carried, with an exception moved by Mr. SOUTHARD, in favor of the
Judges of the Supreme Court, whose sessions do not accord with those of
Congress.

A blank was left as to the sum to be appropriated, in addition to the
remaining part of the five thousand dollars heretofore appropriated, for
the purchase of books.

On the Chairman's asking the sum with which to fill the blank, Mr.
RANDOLPH moved to strike out the sections, observing that, of that sum,
not more than $2,200 had been used, and $2,800 remained unexpended. He
entertained no doubt but Congress would aid the institution by every
timely grant.


WEDNESDAY, December 30.

_Internal Taxes._

Mr. DAVIS moved the appointment of a committee to inquire into the
expediency of repealing the acts imposing duties on stills and distilled
spirits, on refined sugars, on sales at auction, and on pleasure
carriages.

Mr. DAVIS said his object, in making this motion, was, that the House
should accomplish that directly, which had been this session attempted
in so circuitous a way as to embarrass and delay its proceedings. He saw
no reason for going into a Committee of the Whole, in order to arrive at
decisions that might better be made directly by the House itself.

On this motion a debate of considerable length ensued, in which, on the
one side, the reference to a select committee, and on the other a
reference to a Committee of the whole House was advocated. No decision
was had, and of course the motion of Mr. D. was ordered to lie on the
table.

_Army Reduction._

Mr. BAYARD, during the course of the debate--in allusion to the adoption
yesterday of the resolution of Mr. RANDOLPH for reducing the Military
Establishment, which he thought premature, not considering the House as
sufficiently acquainted with the details of the subject, to act upon
it--said, that if gentlemen were for reducing the Army in whatever
degree, or for abandoning it altogether, he should go with them. He
would, on such occasion, be governed by the same principles which had
hitherto guided him. He had heretofore been disposed to repose a liberal
confidence in the Executive of the United States; and when an increase
of our military force had been recommended by the President, he had
invariably been for it; much more would he be disposed, when a reduction
was recommended from the same quarter, to sanction it by his vote. With
the Executive rested the responsibility of the exterior defence of the
nation; and if the Executive was of opinion that the nation was secure
with a force of three, two, or one thousand, or without even a single
man, he would concur with him in giving effect to such a conviction.

Mr. RANDOLPH was called up by these remarks. He had little thought that
his motion, agreed to yesterday _sub silentio_, and without the least
hesitation, would have been made the topic of such animated
animadversion as he had heard to-day. He would tell the gentleman from
Delaware, that his motion had neither been immature in substance, nor
premature as to time. It would be recollected, that previous to its
adoption, the Secretary of War had been called upon to furnish
information to the House. He had furnished information, to his mind
completely satisfactory. He had stated the establishment to be five
thousand men; and his opinion that all the garrisons required only three
thousand men. Could it, then, with any reason be called premature to act
upon such information? If the gentleman from Delaware, or other
gentlemen thought so, why not combat a decision at the time? Did they
imagine that, without the expression of a murmur by them, the mover
would himself rise and oppose his own motion?

As to the delay which had been noticed, as having taken place in the
transaction of business, it was not to be ascribed to any particular
mode of procedure; but to the unusual languor of the season; to the
absence of several members of great weight; to the augmentation of new
members not yet fully acquainted with the forms of business, and to the
unusual mass of information presented to the House, which enlarged the
field of action, and to the delays of printing arising from the unusual
quantity of matter submitted.

_Internal Taxes._

Mr. BAYARD moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union, for the purpose of enabling him to
offer a resolution to the following effect:

      "_Resolved_, That the Committee of Ways and Means be
      instructed to inquire into the expediency of repealing the
      laws laying duties on stills and distilled spirits, on
      refined sugar, on sales at auction, on pleasurable
      carriages, on stamps, and on postage of letters."

Mr. BAYARD made this motion for the purpose of placing the important
subject contemplated by it in a train for decision. He thought it full
time to commence our proceedings upon it; and in his opinion, it was fit
that the consideration of the subject, generally, should go before the
Committee of Ways and Means. The subject was so important as to strike
at the vital principles of our revenue. The repeal of the internal taxes
involved a reduction of six hundred thousand dollars in our receipts.
The propriety of such a reduction did not constitute a distinct subject
for consideration, but depended upon the deductions made on a
comprehensive view of our finances, which could only be taken by the
Committee of Ways and Means, to whom was committed generally whatever
regarded revenue.

If the minds of gentlemen, said Mr. B., were made up to abolish all the
internal taxes, it must be to them perfectly immaterial to what
committee a reference was made. He knew the flattering prospects held
out by the President, and he hoped they would all be verified. But his
own mind was not made up, nor did he know that the minds of other
gentlemen were made up on the propriety of dispensing with these taxes.
He was led to this inference by observing no official notice to such
effect in the communications made by the Secretary of the Treasury. On
the contrary, the Secretary had so made his calculations, predicated as
they were upon the continuance of these taxes, that his calculations
would be greatly deranged by dispensing with them. Mr. B. knew not that
we were prepared to leap this precipice. If the public burdens could be
reduced, he would be delighted with the act of reduction. Yet still, if
the sum of six hundred thousand dollars, derived from these taxes, could
be dispensed with, doubts might be entertained whether the internal
taxes were those which should be first either reduced or abolished. He
held it to be a correct principle, that taxation should be equal, and
that no one class of citizens should be burdened to the exemption of all
other classes. From a slight consideration of the subject, he had found
no other way of enabling our brethren to the westward to participate in
the public burdens than by affording them an opportunity of paying their
portion of internal revenue. It might appear, on investigation, that
more substantial relief would be afforded to the various descriptions of
our citizens, by continuing the internal taxes, and reducing those on
imports; and if it should be thought proper to diminish the burden
imposed on our western citizens, he would ask whether that effect would
not be more substantially accomplished by reducing the tax upon salt? It
would be recollected that great opposition had been made to the
imposition of this tax, which had been denominated oppressive, as it
fell upon an article of necessity.

Attention ought, also, to be paid to the liability of several articles
to be smuggled, the only mode of preventing which was well known to be a
reduction of the duties.

Mr. B. stated these circumstances, not as evidences of having matured
his own ideas; but to show the necessity of referring the subject to a
committee, whose special duty it was to take a general view of the
resources and expenses of the nation, and who, therefore, in the present
stage of the session, were alone in a situation to make the requisite
inquiry.

Mr. EUSTIS said that the reasons offered by the gentleman from Delaware
were with him conclusive that this was not the proper time for
considering the subject. Until we know the reductions in the
expenditures of the Government that are to be made, it is impossible
that we can say how far it will be expedient to reduce or abolish our
taxes. We had not determined to what extent the Army or the Navy should
be reduced, nor had we come to any ultimate decision on any reduction
whatever. For these reasons he must oppose a decision at this time upon
the subject, whether that decision was in this or any other shape.

Mr. BACON concurred with Mr. EUSTIS in considering any decision as at
present premature.

Mr. RUTLEDGE viewed the subject as of great importance. He could not
figure to his imagination one likely to occur this session of equal
importance. The President contemplated a repeal of all the internal
revenues, and the imposition of all taxes upon imported articles. The
Secretary of the Treasury appears, by implication, to be of a different
opinion, and contemplates a continuance of these duties. What is the
object of the gentleman from Delaware? Why, delay; time for
consideration, by reference of the subject to a committee most competent
to inquire. As to the public burdens, every member on the floor had a
common feeling. We do not wish to lay unnecessary taxes. But when taxes
are laid, when they are uncomplained of, it was indeed deeply
interesting without consideration to decide on their abolition. Mr. R.
said, for himself, he should be embarrassed by being forced into an
immediate decision. We want information before we are called upon to
decide. The motion seeks that information. It sends the business to the
Committee of Ways and Means, to whom it belongs of right. It is their
duty to consider it, for whatever relates to revenue must go to them.
Gentlemen cannot say that they are surprised. By the resolution, they
are not called upon to decide upon the subject; they are only called
upon to place it in a train for decision.

Mr. MACON hoped the business would be taken up, and the sooner it was
done, the better. It was certainly of great importance, and the earlier
the House proceeded to consider it, the sooner would they be prepared
for deciding upon it. If the vote of reference was final, the arguments
of the gentleman from Massachusetts would apply. But this was not the
case.

It had been said that the President had declared his opinion that we can
dispense with these taxes. The statement was not correct. His opinion
was contingent. He had said, we may dispense with these taxes in case we
proportionably reduce the expenses.

As to the remarks made respecting the different opinions of the
President and Secretary of the Treasury, they likewise were erroneous.
Distinct views were taken by each. The President, contemplating a
reduction in the expenses, intimates the expediency of repealing the
internal taxes; whereas the Secretary of the Treasury, taking things as
they are, states the effects of their continuance. From these
circumstances, no diversity of opinion could be inferred.

Mr. M. concluded by expressing a hope that the expenses of the
Government would be reduced, that the internal taxes would be taken off,
and that immediate measures would be pursued for preparing the House for
a final decision.

Mr. EUSTIS was alike hostile to the present motion and to that which had
been made by the gentleman from Kentucky, who had yesterday introduced
the subject. He had heard the motion with a sensation of uncommon
surprise; for he was of opinion that the public attention should not be
attracted, or the public sensation excited, till we should be able to
determine the course proper to be pursued. He felt himself unprepared to
decide, and believed other gentlemen were equally unprepared. He hoped
that he cherished a suitable respect for the President of the United
States, though he did not know that he would go so far as the gentleman
from Delaware, and disband a whole army at his word.

The wisest course was to wait until information was obtained. This would
in fact be gaining time. If the Committee of Ways and Means were to
consider the subject, it must be under the present state of things. They
could not take for granted what might or might not be done by Congress;
and before Congress could decide, they must have information which they
do not yet possess. He who, under present circumstance, attempted to say
to what length our retrenchments would go, and what taxes we could
spare, might indeed be called a prophet.

We ought not, said Mr. E., to stir the public sensibility improperly or
prematurely. By exciting that sensibility before we had determined how
to act in future, impressions may be raised which we shall not be able
to satisfy.

Mr. SMILIE concurred in opinion with Mr. E., and moved, as the best mode
of disposing of the subject, that the committee rise.

Mr. GRISWOLD declared himself against delay. He knew not why the House
were not prepared to decide immediately. The President had introduced
the subject, and if any sensibility had been excited, it must be
ascribed to him, and not to us. Nor did he think that any ill effects
would flow from attracting the public attention. The President did not
know, when he addressed us, that we would be for a reduction of the
expenses; yet, thinking as he did, it was highly proper in him to give
his opinion to the House. So proposed to us, it would exhibit a want of
respect to that Magistrate not to take it up immediately. Not to act
upon it promptly would be subversive of the national tranquillity after
the attention of the public had been directed to it.

Mr. SMILIE had thought the gentleman from Connecticut was too well
acquainted with the proceedings of that House to say that the Committee
of Ways and Means were prepared to act upon this subject. Did they know
how far we would reduce the Army, the Navy, or the Judiciary?

Mr. VARNUM hoped the committee would rise. Any disposition of the
subject was at present premature. As to the calculations of the
Secretary alluded to, they were made from the existing revenue, and all
his deductions were made therefrom. The President had taken another view
of the subject. Contemplating the probability of a reduction in our
expenses, he had stated that, in such event, we could dispense with the
internal taxes. But whether the contemplated reduction could be made,
the House were not prepared to say. Of one thing he was sure, that not a
single necessary tax would be abandoned.

Mr. DANA said, that more than three weeks have elapsed since the
President's communication has been laid before us, and, during that
time, a sense of decorum has not induced us to take up one of the most
important parts of it. He certainly agreed with gentlemen that we ought
to take up the subject and decide for ourselves. If we concur with the
President, we shall repeal the laws; if we do not concur, we may, it is
true, risk our popularity by opposing so favorite a measure with the
people. But placed as we shall be between popularity on the one hand,
and duty on the other, as honest men we should do our duty. But
certainly it is our duty now to examine the subject. Grant that the
reduction in our expenses may extend to a million, though scarcely half
that sum could be hoped for; still the question remains what taxes shall
be diminished. He could not, for his part, feel all that horror of
public sensibility that had been portrayed by the gentleman from
Massachusetts. What have we to fear, suppose we interfere with that
sensibility? If we do so in the discharge of our duty, he was perfectly
willing it should be excited; nay, it would be useful to the people
themselves.

Mr. EUSTIS was perfectly ready to meet the public sensibility, whether
for or against us. We had already tried it both ways. He was much
pleased with the respect professed by gentlemen for the public
sensibility, and also for the communications of the President. But there
were parts of those communications, which, notwithstanding the
impatience of gentlemen, they would not be displeased at laying unacted
upon, not merely three weeks, but three months.

Mr. BAYARD did not expect an opposition to his motion from the quarter
from which it came; for he had a right to expect as much deference to
the President from the opposite, as from his own side. For his part he
felt no terrors at meeting the whole, or any part of the President's
communications. Whatever he recommended that was right, he would vote
for, and whatever was wrong, he would oppose. Though his former habits
had led him to cherish a respect for the President, of which he did not
repent, yet he felt no servility that would lead him to repress an
expression of his sentiments.

A gentleman from Pennsylvania had talked about reducing the Army, the
Navy, and the Judiciary. But there were other expenses which the
gentleman might have dwelt on. Why silent on the Legislature? Let us
reduce the length of our sessions. It did not appear consistent in that
gentleman to strike at the Judiciary, and other departments, and leave
untouched whatever affected himself.

Mr. RANDOLPH did not desire to occupy much of the time of the committee,
as he thought it immaterial whether the committee rise or not. But he
wished, for the information, and perhaps for the satisfaction, of the
gentleman from Massachusetts, to state that, among other members, he was
one who had not decided whether Government could dispense with the
internal taxes. He hoped, and was inclined to believe, that they might
be dispensed with. The Secretary of the Treasury had expressly stated
that part of his report was speculative, viz: that part which inferred
the effects of peace. The correctness of the opinion of the Secretary
on this point must decide the House as to the propriety of giving up
these taxes. He was one who, though he did not think a state of peace
would materially affect the revenue, had not decided whether a reduction
of the public impositions in this or that species of revenue should be
made. He noticed these things, to prevent an impression being made on
the public mind that the House were for precipitating a decision. As to
the public sensation, he felt no alarm. He knew that our measures must
depend upon the reductions we shall make.

Mr. R., for these reasons, was against any decision now; and had the
gentleman from Kentucky pressed his motion yesterday, he was prepared to
move a postponement of it. In the mean time, there were other important
topics involved in the Message that might be referred and acted upon.

Mr. DANA presumed that the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts had
done him the honor of alluding to him in his remarks. He was not very
solicitous that the subject should be inquired into, but since it was
brought up, he must say that nothing short of the talents of the
honorable gentleman could furnish a semblance of reason for not going
immediately into the inquiry. That gentleman errs egregiously, if he
imagines that I can dread an investigation of any point involved in the
President's Message. He would add, that whatever his particular opinion
might be of the person to whom had been confided the Government of the
nation, it became him only to see in him the First Magistrate of the
country, and to treat him with correspondent respect, and to see in what
he did, not the man, but the measure.

The question was then taken on the committee rising, and lost--yeas 29,
nays 48.

The reference to the Committee of Ways and Means was then carried, both
in committee and in the House, without a division.

The House adjourned till Monday.


MONDAY, January 4, 1802.

WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his
credentials, and took his seat in the House.

_Ordered_, That Mr. MILLEDGE be appointed to the Committee of Ways and
Means, in the room of Mr. DICKSON, who is sick and unable to attend.

_Judiciary System._

Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the House should go into a Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union, with the view of submitting three
resolutions to the committee, viz:

      "_Resolved_, That it is expedient to inquire whether any,
      and what, alterations should be made in the Judicial
      Establishment of the United States.

      "_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made for the
      impartial selection of juries.

      "_Resolved_, That it is expedient to inquire whether any,
      and what, reductions can be made in the civil expenses of
      the Government of the United States."

The House accordingly went into committee.

Mr. BAYARD presumed an agreement to these resolutions would, in their
present shape, meet with no opposition. It was impossible to determine
what shape they would ultimately assume. The Judiciary system was
doubtless susceptible of amendment, and if any proper amendments should
be proposed, he would concur in their adoption. With respect to the
second resolution, though he did not know that there was any necessity
for altering the mode at present practised of selecting juries, not
having heard of any complaints under it, yet, as the resolution only led
to an inquiry into the subject, he would not object.

With regard to the last resolution, it was one in which we must all
concur. The object, if attainable, would be extremely grateful to all of
us.

The three resolutions were agreed to without a division. The committee
then rose, and reported them to the House.

On the report being taken up, Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the consideration
of the two first resolutions be postponed till the third Monday of
January.

Mr. BAYARD hoped the motion for postponement would not prevail. The
propositions were abstract ones, leading to inquiry, and the sooner they
were acted upon, the better. The mode pursued by the gentleman from
Virginia, if his simple object was to give notice, was the least happy
that he could have devised, for it gave to gentlemen no opportunity to
prepare themselves, as they were totally unacquainted, in the present
stage of the business, as to what would be the alterations proposed. If
a committee were now appointed, they would have time to deliberate on a
subject of the utmost importance--one so complicated as to require great
attention. When their report was made, he would be one of those who
would ask from the candor of the House time to consider it.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, he was at all times willing to accommodate gentlemen
of every political description on proper occasions. Apprehending that
his resolutions, if taken up in the House, would give rise to
discussion, he had moved for their postponement, from a wish not to
interfere with the desire of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and other
gentlemen, to act on the apportionment bill. As his motion for
postponement appeared likely to be itself productive of discussion, by
which the time of the House would be exhausted, and the means he used
defeat the end he had in view, he would withdraw his motion.

The House then agreed to the resolutions without a division.

Mr. RANDOLPH moved the reference of the two first resolutions to the
same committee.

He said, in reply to the gentleman from Delaware, that he made the
motion respecting juries not because any complaint did at present exist
of the exercise of the powers under which jurors were selected, but
because they had not long since existed, and because in similar
circumstances they might again exist. He was glad the gentleman from
Delaware had no reason to complain of their present abuse. But this was
no security against the future.

Mr. BAYARD said, that he had spoken as he had done, not for the purpose
of expressing any opinion that any abuse respecting juries had been
recently removed under the present state of things; but to state that he
had never heard of any complaints on this subject in the part of the
Union from which he came; and he had particularly alluded to the mode of
designating jurors in his State, which was by ballot. But if there were
complaints in other parts of the Union, he would co-operate in any means
that could be devised for removing them.

Mr. SMILIE said, that since the gentleman from Delaware had introduced
the subject, and had declared that no complaints existed, he would say
that complaints had existed, that just grounds for them existed, and
that they had been expressed in the loudest tone. And he would appeal to
the gentleman from Delaware whether any man could be safe who was at the
mercy of a marshal, who was the mere creature of the President.

Mr. BAYARD.--While man continues as he is, there will be complaints on
this subject. We are divided into parties. The people, as well as the
President, must belong to one side or the other; and whether we have
sheriffs chosen by the people, or marshals appointed by the President,
the evil will still exist. He had no objection, if it were the wish of
gentlemen, that the marshals should be appointed by the people; though
we know that the people are as apt, nay more apt, to be infected with
violent political feelings, than an Executive officer.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, that without desiring to exhaust the time of the
House on a point where there was no difference of opinion, he could not
permit the observation of the gentleman from Delaware to pass unnoticed;
that an officer, holding a lucrative office, appointed by the President,
and dependent upon his will, is as independent as a sheriff, elected in
some States annually by the people, and in other States appointed in a
manner calculated to ensure his independence. He would instance the
State of Virginia, in which the sheriffs were nominated by the justices
of the county courts, who, it was understood, were to hold the office of
sheriff in rotation. Will the gentleman say that these men, who are
independent of the pleasure of any man, are liable to be made the same
tools, with officers who hold their appointments at the absolute will of
one man?

Mr. R. would further say, that the remark of the gentleman from
Delaware, that the existence of no complaints had ever come to his ears,
had excited his extreme astonishment. In North Carolina, he believed, no
legal jury had been selected since the establishment of the Federal
Government. In that State, in the State courts, all juries are first
selected in the inferior courts, and then sent to the superior courts.
He would ask, how, under these circumstances, a jury could be struck in
a federal court in that State agreeably to law? In Virginia and
Pennsylvania, the independence of sheriffs is secured; therefore, no
restrictions are imposed upon them in selecting juries; whereas, in the
federal courts the marshal is the abject creature of the Executive--and
yet we are told the security is the same! Mr. R. did not wish to consume
the time of the House; but when views are taken by gentlemen calculated,
either as to fact or sentiment, to lead the public mind astray, if other
gentlemen did not, he would invariably notice them.

Mr. BAYARD desired to explain. He had not meant to contend that sheriffs
chosen for three years by the people were as dependent as similar
officers appointed by the President. He had alluded to the effects which
flowed from a marked division of parties. We were in all events subject
to that evil. It was a truth that men deeply infected with party were
more apt to be chosen by the people than by an Executive magistrate;
because the people felt more strongly a degree of political fanaticism.

After some further debate, it was determined to refer the two first
resolutions to a committee of seven, and the last to a committee of five
members.

_Ordered_, That Mr. NICHOLSON, Mr. JOHN TALIAFERRO, Jr., Mr. GODDARD,
Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. ISRAEL SMITH, Mr. HENDERSON, and Mr. BAILEY, be
appointed a committee, pursuant to the first and second resolutions.

_Ordered_, That Mr. BACON, Mr. GROVE, Mr. ELMENDORPH, Mr. HEMPHILL, and
Mr. ABRAM TRIGG, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the third
resolution.


TUESDAY, January 5.

_Apportionment Bill._

On the question being taken for striking out thirty-three, it was
lost--yeas 42, nays 48.

Mr. DENNIS moved to strike out eight, the number of Representatives
allotted to Maryland, and insert nine; which amendment had been rendered
necessary by the supplementary return received from Maryland.

On this motion a very desultory debate took place, which was twice
interrupted by motions for the committee to rise, which were both lost.

Much personal recrimination, chiefly on the charge of delay on the one
side, and precipitation on the other, was exchanged.

The amendment was at last agreed to--yeas 57.

The committee then rose and reported the bill as amended.

The House immediately took up the report of the committee, agreed to the
amendments, and ordered the bill to be engrossed for a third reading
to-morrow.


THURSDAY, January 7.

_Stenographers._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the standing rules of the
House.

Mr. LEIB moved the addition of the following rule:

      "The Speaker shall assign such places to the stenographers
      on the floor, as shall not interfere with the convenience
      of the House."

Mr. LEIB prefaced his motion, by observing that, in the standing rules
proposed, no provision appeared to be made for the admission of
stenographers. They had heretofore been subject to the will of the
Speaker. However great his respect for the present Speaker, he was of
opinion, that they should not depend for their accommodation upon the
will of any man; and he thought it became the House, on this occasion,
to establish a precedent which would place those who took the debates
above the caprice of any individual.

Mr. HUGER moved to amend the motion so as to read as follows;

      "Stenographers shall be admitted, and the Speaker shall
      assign to them such places on the floor as shall not
      interfere with the convenience of the House."

Mr. LEIB agreed to this modification.

The motion was opposed by Mr. GRISWOLD, Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. VARNUM, Mr.
HEMPHILL, Mr. T. MORRIS, Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. DANA, Mr. ELMER, and Mr.
GODDARD; and supported by Mr. LEIB, Mr. S. SMITH, Mr. NICHOLSON, Mr.
CLAIBORNE, Mr. SMILIE, Mr. HOLLAND, and Mr. SPRIGG.

Mr. HUGER opposed the original motion of Mr. LEIB, but supported the
motion, as amended by himself.

The opponents of the motion declared, that it did not relate to
substance, but merely to form; that it was allowed on all hands, that
the debates should be taken, and that stenographers should,
consequently, be admitted. But the single question was, how, and under
what authority, they should be admitted. They remarked, that they had
heretofore been admitted by the Speaker, under whose direction they had
remained; that the Speaker was the only proper authority under whose
direction they ought still to remain; that, as the preservation of order
and decorum rested with him, the stenographers, as well as other
persons, should be permitted by him to enter the House, and be by him
excluded, whenever, in his opinion, the order and a respect for the
House required it. That, in case stenographers deported themselves in a
disrespectful manner, or grossly misrepresented the ideas of members,
the Speaker was the only person who could effectually cure the evil;
that there had been, and might again be, instances of such misconduct;
that, in one case, a stenographer had entered the House in a state of
intoxication; another case, a speech of a gentleman from South Carolina,
had been perversely misrepresented, and the stenographer had refused to
correct his errors, for which he had been expelled the House; and that,
in another case, the Speaker, considering himself as misrepresented, had
expelled the stenographer.

Among the opponents of the motion, a great diversity of opinion
prevailed. Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. VARNUM, and Mr. ELMER, objected to it, merely
on the ground that it was improper to come to any solemn decision, which
was the less necessary, as the stenographers already occupied convenient
seats, from which there was no probability of their being extruded by
the Speaker.

Those who supported the motion, considered its decision as involving an
important point; a point no less important, than, whether the debates of
that House should be taken with accuracy, and published without fear or
partiality. They averred it as a fact, that, owing to the unwarrantable
conduct of the Speaker, this had heretofore, at many periods, not been
the case. The public had sought information without being able to get
it. It was true, that a stenographer had been expelled for publishing a
speech of a gentleman from South Carolina; but it was not for
misrepresenting that speech, but for faithfully publishing it; and in
the other case alluded to, a stenographer had been expelled by the
Speaker, for stating, with correctness, what the Speaker had himself
said. These were alarming facts, not to be forgotten, and which claimed
the interposition of the House. If stenographers should be guilty of
indecorum, they could still (this rule notwithstanding) be expelled the
House. It was acknowledged that the gentleman who at present filled the
chair, was entitled to the full confidence of the House, but it was
dangerous to vest arbitrary power in the hands of any man, and it was
peculiarly proper to provide in fair, for foul weather; and it was
added, that though the proposed rule would not be obligatory upon a
future House, yet it would form a precedent, which they might see fit to
respect.

The motion, as modified by Mr. HUGER, was then agreed to--yeas 47, nays
32.

The committee then rose, and reported the rules with the above
amendment.

The amendment was immediately taken up; when

Mr. RUTLEDGE moved to amend the report of the committee, by making it
read as follows:

      "Stenographers may be admitted under the direction of the
      Speaker, who shall assign to them such places on the floor,
      as shall not interfere with the convenience of the House."

On this amendment a further debate ensued; after which, the yeas and
nays were called, and were--yeas 27, nays 51.

Another motion was then made and seconded to amend the said amendment,
by inserting after the words, "stenographers shall," the following
words, "until otherwise ordered by the House;"

And, the question being thereupon taken, it passed in the negative.

And the main question being put, that the House do agree to the
amendment for an additional rule, as reported from the Committee of the
whole House, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas, 47, nays 28.

_Resolved_, That this House doth agree to the said standing rules and
orders, as amended.


MONDAY, January 11.

Another member, to wit, SETH HASTINGS, from Massachusetts, produced his
credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Mediterranean Trade._

Mr. RANDOLPH moved a resolution directing the Secretary of the Treasury
to lay before the House an estimate of the value of the exports of the
United States, for the last five years, to ports situated within the
Straits of Gibraltar, discriminating articles of American growth from
other productions.

Mr. RANDOLPH observed that he was aware of the inability of the
Secretary to distinguish precisely the exports of the United States,
carried to the Mediterranean ports of France and Spain, from those
carried to their other ports. But still he thought it probable that the
Secretary might be able to furnish information that would be valuable.

Mr. S. SMITH said, that when the report was made by the Secretary, it
would be a report of deception. A great part of our trade to the
Mediterranean had been lopped off in consequence of the war.

Mr. SMITH afterwards remarked that, on the report being made, he feared
the inquiry would be, whether we should give up the protection of the
Mediterranean trade, or not. Gentlemen would probably go into a
calculation of figures; and if the expense of protection appeared to be
greater than the benefit of the trade, they might be for withholding
protection. There was one description of trade to the Mediterranean,
which we could obtain no estimate of, which was however very
important--the tonnage of American shipping employed in going from
European ports to the Mediterranean, and from the Mediterranean to
European ports, and American shipping employed between the East Indies
and the Mediterranean. This trade the Government was as much bound to
protect, as it was bound to protect the landed interest of the country.
Still, Mr. S. knew not that it would be proper to oppose the passage of
a resolution that asked for information.

Mr. SMILIE knew not what information we could receive; but he knew that
whatever it should be, it could do no harm.

Mr. NICHOLSON remarked, that the House would not be in a worse situation
after the report, than it was now. For himself, he was in a state of
total ignorance, and he believed a large part of the House was also
ignorant of the extent of our Mediterranean trade. It was impossible
that the House could be deceived by the report; as, if any part of it
should be calculated to deceive us, his colleague would be able to
detect its errors. He had heard, and that too from commercial men, that
our Mediterranean trade was not valuable, and not worth the expense of
the squadron fitted out to protect it. He was at a loss to decide
between these opinions and those of his colleague.

Mr. MITCHILL spoke in favor of the resolution.

Mr. GRISWOLD had no objection to obtaining the estimate, if desired by
gentlemen; not that he supposed the report could present the information
that was desired. With regard to our Mediterranean trade, it was well
known, that lately, owing to our contest with Algiers, our fish and oil
went in European bottoms, which could not be noticed in the Treasury
statements, as they went first to other ports.

Mr. EUSTIS was perfectly willing to obtain the report, that the great
increase in our trade to the Mediterranean should be seen; from which
its great value would fully appear, and its claim to encouragement.

Mr. VARNUM suggested the propriety of a reference to a select committee,
which, from the documents before the House, could select the desired
information.

Mr. RUTLEDGE feared, that the call for this information would delay the
passage of an important bill before the House for the protection of our
Mediterranean commerce. He hoped, in order as promptly as possible to
obtain information, the Secretary of the Treasury would be called upon
for it. With respect to the protection of our trade in the
Mediterranean, it was, in his opinion, unimportant what its extent was.
We were bound to protect the commerce of our citizens in all its
ramifications, whether great or small.

The resolution was then agreed to.


THURSDAY, January 14.

Another member, to wit, JOHN DAWSON, from Virginia, appeared, was
qualified, and took his seat in the House.


WEDNESDAY, January 20.

_Military Peace Establishment._

The House then took up the amendment to the bill fixing the Military
Peace Establishment.

Mr. BAYARD moved to strike out the office of Brigadier General. He said
there could not be any occasion for such an officer, as the men were
scattered over the whole extent of our frontiers and Atlantic coast, and
placed in small divisions.

This brought on a debate which was continued until after three o'clock.

The question was taken by yeas and nays for striking out--36 against it,
54 for it.

Mr. BAYARD moved to strike out the office of colonel, and add one to the
number of majors; but it was not agreed to.

The bill proposed to give those officers who should be deranged, three
months' pay when they were dismissed from the service.

Mr. GRISWOLD moved to strike out "three months," that a greater
compensation might be given to those who have grown gray in the service
of their country. He thought more was due to them than what the bill
proposed to allow.

Mr. VARNUM said, his own opinion was in favor of a greater compensation;
but he owed it to a majority of that House, to yield his opinion to what
they had fixed it at. He said there was nothing due to those officers,
as nothing had been promised them.

Mr. MITCHILL was in favor of striking out, for the purpose of inserting
a compensation proportionate to the length of time the officers had been
in service.

Mr. BACON differed as to the principle laid down by gentlemen. When
officers were wanted, there was great competition for the appointments.
They were desirous to receive the pay and emoluments. He did not think
there was any thing due to them.

Mr. S. SMITH was for pursuing some system in this business, and keeping
to a uniform principle. When a reduction was made in 1796, six months'
pay and subsistence was granted. He would be in favor of that at this
time.

Mr. DANA believed those officers accepted their appointments under an
idea of its being the permanent Peace Establishment, and therefore
something was due to them when dismissed from the public service.

Mr. SMILIE said, they knew the terms on which they entered the service,
and they entered voluntarily. How could any thing, then, be due to them?
It would be more proper to give the men something when disbanded than to
provide for the officers. It was not long since that about forty were
wanted, and there were thirteen hundred applications. Men could not
always be obtained. When the ten regiments were ordered to be raised,
the officers were soon obtained; but, after recruiting a long time, the
proper number of men could not be procured.

The question for striking out was taken by yeas and nays--for it 26,
against it 56.

Mr. S. SMITH made a motion to raise it to the same as was granted in
1796.

Mr. EUSTIS advocated it, but it was not carried, there being 26 for it,
and 45 against it.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.


THURSDAY, January 21.

_Military Peace Establishment._

An engrossed bill fixing the Military Peace Establishment of the United
States was read the third time.

Mr. BAYARD observed that he should vote for the bill, because he thought
it better than the former system, and it would be of much saving as to
expense. He was, however, very far from being pleased with a part of
that bill, that part relating to the Brigadier General and his
aide-de-camp. This office he knew to be a perfect sinecure; no such
officer was necessary; he could have no duties to perform. He would not,
however, vote against the whole bill on account of this.

Mr. RUTLEDGE.--The first section was very disagreeable to him, as it
went to the establishment of a perfect sinecure. He was willing to do
homage to the merit of the officer who was to benefit; but he rather
thought it would be more consonant with justice, if money must be
needlessly sported with, to suffer such money to be given to those who
have been long in service--some fifteen or twenty years--and who are now
by this bill suddenly forced to quit their present, to seek some new way
of obtaining a livelihood, in circumstances, many of them perhaps, not
enviable.

Mr. R. was not pleased with the so great reduction of the artillery; he
thought the retention of the artillery of more importance than that of
the infantry. He had hoped the artillery would have been retained to
keep in order the forts already built in different parts of the United
States; the small number remaining was quite incompetent to preserving
them in order, or preserving them from decay. The Secretary of War
mentions one fort in South Carolina. There are, sir, four forts in the
harbor of Charleston alone, some of which must go to decay. He should
vote for the bill because it went to make great reductions of expense,
which reductions circumstances now allow us to afford; but the sinecure
was obnoxious to him, and he was not pleased with the reduction of the
artillery.

On the question that the bill do pass, it was resolved in the
affirmative--yeas 77, nays 12.

_Mediterranean Trade._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill for the protection of the commerce and seamen of the United
States in the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.

Mr. BAYARD offered an amendment, the purport of which, was to give to
the President the power of granting letters of marque and reprisal, to
affect Algiers and Tunis as well as Tripoli. Mr. B. thought that it
would be unsafe to neglect a cautionary step like this, because there
was great danger, from the similarity of religion and manners, of a
union taking place between Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli; they may be
brought into the war with Tripoli against us. It would be a matter of
prudence to be prepared.

Mr. DANA thought it very probable that further information would be
received from the Barbary powers, when we shall be the better enabled to
judge what will be expedient. He did not like the appearance of the
amendment; it seemed to invite war.

Mr. BAYARD considered there was a great difference between the Barbary
powers and civilized nations; it was on account of the perfidiousness
of those powers, that he wished it left to the direction of the
President to exercise the power vested in him when he should think
proper; there was no trusting to them. He wished the President to do
this by the authority of law; this would prevent those doubts that have
been expressed by some, of the constitutionality of his measures the
last spring and summer; though for his part he was disposed to approbate
the proceedings of the Executive on that occasion. As to its having the
appearance of threatening, he did not think so; nor did he believe it
would have any effect on those powers; he hardly believed that the Dey
of Algiers ever read the acts of Congress.

Mr. DANA was opposed to considering the subject at present; he was for
postponing till further information should be received.

Mr. GILES was against the amendment; he thought it had the appearance of
inviting them to an attack, of challenging them to combat, of irritating
and provoking them: he believed there would be ample time to act on this
matter hereafter, when they would have a better knowledge of
circumstances, and of what to expect.

Mr. BAYARD said he was by no means disposed to withdraw his motion. You
are at war with one of these nations; the others are connected with them
by their religion and habits, by their government some, and by their
interest more. I have been told that there is no connection between my
amendment and the bill; but I am confident there is the same connection
that there is between Tripoli and the other powers; and it is proper to
extend the bill so as to embrace Tunis and Algiers, as well as Tripoli.
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. DANA) says there are no doubts on
his mind but that the President has a constitutional right, as the
Commander-in-chief of the army and navy, to do as he has done; but it
should be remembered that many have doubts; and why should the gentleman
be opposed to this amendment, which will preclude all doubt on the
subject.

The amendment was not carried.

_Direct Taxes._

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for
amending the act for laying and collecting a direct tax.

The first section repeals the thirteenth section of the act of 1798,
which prescribes that lands on which taxes remain unpaid for one year,
shall be sold subject to the right of redemption within two years after
sale.

Mr. RANDOLPH stated that the provisions proposed to be repealed were
unsusceptible of execution, inasmuch as the expenses of advertising
required, exceeded in many cases by four or five times, the amount of
the tax, and which exceeded the per centage allowed; and inasmuch as no
person would buy the land offered for sale, when he might be deprived of
it by a redemption within two years.

Documents were read which substantiated this statement.

Mr. S. SMITH opposed the repeal, as going to deprive the owners of lands
of the right of redemption; which he deemed a valuable provision;
without which the owners of land, particularly non-residents, would be
deprived of their property, without a knowledge of the tax imposed, or
being able, however desirous, to pay it.

Mr. RUTLEDGE also opposed the repeal, as imposing hardships upon those
who have not paid the tax, which were not imposed upon those who have
paid. He further stated that the non-payment in the Southern States had
arisen, not from indisposition to pay, but from want of collectors to
carry the law into execution; the compensation allowed having been so
inadequate as in many districts to have disabled the Government from
obtaining officers.

Messrs. GRISWOLD, MILLEDGE, STANLEY, and MORRIS, delivered their
sentiments against the first section; when, on motion of Mr. MACON, the
committee rose, and asked leave to sit again, which was granted.


FRIDAY, January 22.

Another member, to wit, ROBERT WILLIAMS, from North Carolina, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.


MONDAY, January 25.

_Import Duties._

Mr. NICHOLSON called up the resolution he laid on the table on Friday,
for instructing the Committee of Ways and Means to report generally on
the subject of impost duties.

Mr. LOWNDES wished to amend it so as to direct the attention of that
committee particularly to the articles of salt, brown sugar, coffee, and
Bohea tea.

This the SPEAKER considered out of order, as resolutions on those
subjects were then before the House.

Mr. RUTLEDGE and Mr. BAYARD wished to withdraw the resolutions they had
offered on the articles of salt, brown sugar, &c.

Mr. SPEAKER considered the resolutions in possession of the House, as
they had been debated, and the previous question taken on them, and no
motion could be made while another motion was pending.

Mr. BAYARD asked for information whether it was in order for him to
state that he withdrew his resolution?

Some conversation took place as to points of order.

The question on the resolution was called for.

Mr. DANA said there was no instruction given to the committee by the
resolution of December 13, to make a report on the subject of imposts
and tonnage. He was pleased to see this resolution moved by the
gentleman from Maryland, as it showed his belief to be that the subject
was not referred to the committee.

Mr. DANA expressed his wish that two things should be referred to the
Committee of Ways and Means: First, a general view of the duties of
imposts and excise that they might be contrasted; and, secondly, that
certain articles should be specifically referred to them.

Mr. NICHOLSON said the gentleman from Connecticut was very much mistaken
as to the object of his resolution. It was not that he did not think the
subject before the committee, but as so much had been said about the
former general reference, he wished to prevent the gentleman from
Connecticut from quibbling respecting the reference.

[Here Mr. N. was called to order by Mr. GRISWOLD. The SPEAKER declared
it as his opinion that the gentleman was in order. Mr. BAYARD appealed
to the House, and called the yeas and nays, which were agreed to be
taken.]

_Internal Revenues--Expenses of collection compared with Custom House
Duties._

Mr. BAYARD called up the following resolution, which he had some days
previously laid upon the table, viz:

      "_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury be required
      to lay before this House an account, in detail, of the
      expenses incurred in the collection of the internal
      revenues of the United States; distinguishing, where the
      same may be practicable, the expenses attending the
      collection in each branch of the said revenue, and, also,
      an estimate of reduction of said expenses which may
      conveniently be made."

The resolution having been read, Mr. B. said: As it is extremely
possible, Mr. SPEAKER, that it is designed that this resolution shall
share the same fate with that which the resolution of the gentleman from
New York experienced this morning, I shall be allowed at least by
publicly stating, to justify to the world, the motive which induced me
to bring it forward. [Mr. B. alluded to a resolution offered by Mr. T.
MORRIS, the object of which was, to direct the Secretary of the Treasury
to state to the House the amount of stamp duties collected in each
State, distinguishing what part was paid by the commercial cities. When
the resolution was taken up there was a call for the question. Nothing
was said against the propriety of it. It being merely a call for
information, and considered so much a matter of course to agree to such
resolutions when no opposition was made to them, it was not supposed
necessary to say any thing on the propriety and reasonableness of the
resolution. Yet, to the astonishment of its friends, when the question
was put, there were for it 34, against it 54.]

Gentlemen are infinitely deceived, said Mr. B., if they think our object
is, by any particular mode of proceeding, to gain an unfair advantage of
public opinion. If such a suspicion be entertained, our conduct has been
viewed with a jaundiced eye. It is a motive which never has, and I hope
never will direct our measures. If popularity is to be gained only by a
prostitution of principle to ignorant and unthinking prejudice, we are
content to forego it. I am far from being indifferent to public opinion;
the approbation of our fellow-citizens is the only reward we can expect
for our services; but it is a reward no honest man will seek, if it is
to be acquired only by artifice and deception.

I have avowed and avowed sincerely, that I am disposed to go hand and
hand with gentlemen in the reduction of public burdens. When it was
necessary I assisted in imposing them--now that circumstances permit I
more cheerfully co-operate in taking them off. My true object is to make
the most of our situation; not to be deluded by empty theories, or
speculative systems, but, by an enlarged view of the various interests
of the country, to discover by the reduction of what taxes the society
would be the most substantially benefited.

The reduction of the Military Establishment creates considerable
savings; other retrenchments are contemplated in the Navy and civil
administration. These savings enable us to dispense with certain taxes;
but is it not wise to examine diligently the operation of the several
taxes which exist, and, after being informed by the various views which
belong to the subject, to exonerate the community from those which, with
the least benefit, are the most burdensome?

One great objection to the internal taxes is the expense of collection.
I wish to know the particulars of this expense in order to see whether
it may not be curtailed. I wish also to be informed of the expenses
attending each branch of the revenue, for the purpose of judging whether
it may not be expedient to retain some branches, while it may be wise to
part with others. These are my objects; do they not entitle us to the
information asked?

We know in one instance, that the expense in collecting the stamp duty
is less than five per cent. This appears by the report of the Secretary
of the Treasury; but we are not informed of the particular expenses
belonging to the other branches of the revenue.

Sir, said Mr. B., I must rely that the resolution will be agreed to;
there is not a precedent in our annals or opposition to such a
resolution; if, however, one is now to be introduced, I think it proper
that the names of those gentlemen should hereafter appear by whom it was
resisted, and by whom it was established. He therefore hoped the
question would be taken by yeas and nays.

The Clerk, at the request of Mr. RANDOLPH, read an extract from the
report of the Secretary of the Treasury, as follows:

      "It will appear by the same statement, [M,] that while the
      expenses of collection on merchandise and tonnage, which
      are defrayed out of the revenue, do not exceed four per
      cent., those on permanent internal duties amount to almost
      twenty per cent. This, however, is an inconvenience which,
      on account of the great number of the individuals on whom
      the duties are raised, and of their dispersed situation
      throughout the whole extent of the United States, must,
      more or less, attach to the system of internal taxation so
      long as the wants of Government shall not require any
      considerable extension, and the total amount of revenue
      shall remain inconsiderable."

Mr. T. MORRIS.--If the honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH)
thinks that the extract of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury,
the reading of which he has called for, furnishes the information
demanded by my honorable friend from Delaware, he is mistaken. The
Secretary's report gives you a general estimate of the expense of
collecting the aggregate of the internal taxes, but does not specify the
charge falling on each separate tax. From the statement exhibited by the
Secretary, it appears that it costs twenty per cent. to collect the
whole of the internal taxes; but if the detailed statement asked for by
the gentleman from Delaware is furnished, it will appear that the
collection of some of those taxes does not cost more than five or six
per cent. To show how unfair it is to connect together the expense
attending the collection of all the internal taxes, I need only refer
gentlemen to an authority which I believe they will not dispute. If my
memory, sir, is not very incorrect, it will appear by a publication of
the present Secretary of the Treasury, written in the year 1796, that
the tax on country distilleries cost in its collection near thirty per
cent.; that on city distilleries about nineteen. These, sir, and other
reasons, may evince the propriety of repealing the tax on country
distilleries; but because this tax is expensive in its collection,
because it may be liable to objections, does it follow that other taxes,
such as the tax on carriages, on refined sugars, &c., which fall on the
rich, and which are not expensive in the collection, does it follow, I
say, that because it may be proper to repeal the first, that these are
to fall too? It is, sir, in order to be enabled to make proper
discrimination, to be enabled to know which of these taxes ought to be
repealed, and which retained, that the gentleman from Delaware has moved
his resolution. And here, sir, let me be permitted to express a hope,
that the resolution now before you may not meet with the silent negative
which was the fate of one intended also to procure information, and
which I had the honor of laying on your table. I did and do still
believe, sir, that the majority of this House could not have been
actuated by proper motives in refusing that information. [Here Mr.
RANDOLPH called Mr. MORRIS to order, saying that he had no right to
impeach the motives of members. Mr. M. observed that for his part he was
at a loss to know what was considered disorderly in that House, but that
he would submit to the correction of the Chair. The SPEAKER determined
him to be in order, and Mr. M. proceeded.] With regard, sir, to the
course of proceeding which gentlemen have lately adopted, persevering
in an inflexible silence, rejecting every proposition made by a member
in the minority, without deigning to show its fallacy, refusing public
documents for our information and that of our fellow-citizens, without
showing, or even pretending to show, that they are unnecessary, I can
only say that it militates against all my ideas of propriety. I have
always hitherto supposed that every Representative on this floor had a
right to be heard; that he had a right to call on the majority for their
reasons both when they supported and opposed public measures. Gentlemen
may, if they please, meet in what they have denominated caucuses when
power was in other hands; they may then confer together about the
measures in which they may think proper to unite; but, sir, if their
debates are to take place there, and there alone, if we are not to be
furnished here by them with the reasons which induce them to adopt
public measures, they ought at least to open their doors to the
minority, in order that, if they cannot hear their arguments in the
proper place, they may not close them altogether. I trust, sir, that
gentlemen themselves will see the impropriety of persevering in this
line of conduct, and that they will consent to pay, if not to gentlemen
in the minority, at least to their propositions, the attention and
respect which they may deserve.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, that he presumed the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH) had requested that the extract from the report of the
Secretary of the Treasury might be read, and which the House had just
heard, for the purpose of proving that the resolution under
consideration ought to pass. Indeed that report, and the statement to
which it referred, evinced in the most satisfactory manner that the
information required by the resolution was absolutely necessary for the
purpose of enabling the House to decide understandingly on the
proposition, which it was expected would soon be brought forward, for
abolishing the internal taxes. The Secretary in his report had declared
that the expense of collecting the internal taxes amounted nearly to
twenty per cent. on the amount collected. It appeared, however, from the
statements to which the Secretary had alluded, that the tax on stills,
the carriage tax, the tax on licenses, on sales at auction, and the tax
on refined sugar, had been included in one class, and the expense of
collecting all those taxes, without distinguishing the charges on each
branch, had been stated to be nearly twenty per cent., whilst the
expense of collecting the stamp duty, another branch of the internal
taxes, was short of five per cent., varying only a fraction from the
charges on the revenue from impost and tonnage. These statements might
be satisfactory as far as they went, but it was obvious that in
examining the branches of a revenue, with a view to the expense of
collection, it became necessary to ascertain the precise charge which
had fallen on each branch, and to obtain this necessary information, and
which the report and statements had left defective, the resolution had
been principally brought forward. And what had rendered this information
peculiarly necessary at this time was the ground which had been taken in
opposition to the internal taxes. The only argument which he had heard
against those taxes, and which did not equally apply to the impost, was
drawn from the great expense which had arisen in the collection. To
enable the House, therefore, to decide whether the fact existed on which
that argument had been founded, it became necessary to inquire in the
manner proposed by the resolution whether the extraordinary expense with
which those taxes had been charged might not be diminished, and whether
the expense really existed in relation to each description of them.

Mr. G. said that he presumed no gentleman was prepared to say that the
general expense of collection might not be diminished, and so far was he
from believing that every branch of the internal taxes was subjected to
the charge of nineteen or twenty per cent., he was perfectly confident
that if gentlemen would agree to the resolution, the detailed
statements, which the Secretary would furnish in obedience to it, would
prove that the expense of collecting certain branches of those taxes
would fall much short of the sum at which the same has been estimated.

The consent of the House, said Mr. G., to every call for information,
had formerly been so much a matter of course, that he should not have
troubled the House with any remarks upon so plain a question as the
present, had not the experience of this day proved, that gentlemen were
not always to be indulged by the House with the information which they
required; and the profound silence which had at this time been observed
by those gentlemen who could either admit or reject the resolution,
appeared to indicate a determination on their part to refuse the
important and necessary information required by the resolution. He did
presume, however, that upon this occasion the House would consent to the
resolution, and more particularly, as the report of the Secretary of the
Treasury, which had been read at the request of the gentleman from
Virginia, proved so clearly the necessity of passing it.

Mr. HUGER could not reconcile it with his sense of duty, to give a
silent vote on the present occasion, nor could he but lament the strange
and novel course of proceeding which gentlemen had thought proper to
adopt. The intention, it would seem, was to repeal the internal taxes,
right or wrong, and at all events; and so determined were gentlemen on
carrying this favorite project into execution, that every thing like
previous investigation, or even a wish to gain information on the
subject, was hooted at and treated with the most sovereign contempt.
Every, the smallest, reduction on taxes of any other description, was
avowedly to be excluded, nor was any proposition to this effect deemed
worthy of even a moment's consideration. The measure proposed, however,
interested in a very particular manner that part of the community he had
the honor to represent. They paid, it was true, a small portion of the
internal taxes, but the various other taxes upon salt, brown sugar,
coffee, &c., and the duties on imposts generally, fell more immediately
and far more heavily on them. Was it not natural, therefore, that he
should have some hesitation on the subject; that he should feel anxious
to see this project thoroughly and completely investigated; that he
should wish to receive every possible information which might either
tend to satisfy his mind as to the expediency of repealing the internal
taxes only, to the total exclusion of all others, or enable him to
propose some other project, equally beneficial perhaps to the public at
large, and which might at the same time accord better with the immediate
interests of his constituents?

His constituents, he was proud to say it, had ever contributed with
alacrity and cheerfulness to the wants and exigencies of the Union. They
were prepared and willing, he was confident, to do so still; and he made
not the least doubt but that they would readily subscribe to the
exclusive repeal of the internal taxes, and submit, without a murmur, to
the continuation of all the other taxes, however burdensome to
themselves, provided they are convinced and well satisfied that this
measure was fairly and impartially adopted for the welfare of the whole,
and not for the benefit of the one at the expense of the other division
of the country. It was for this purpose, therefore, that he wished the
present motion to be adopted, and that he had desired the attention of
the Committee of Ways and Means to be directed, particularly, to those
articles of importation and of general use and necessity, such as salt,
sugar, coffee, common teas, &c. He was desirous that these and similar
items should be compared with the carriage tax, the tax on licenses to
retail spirituous liquors, and various other similar items of the
internal taxes, and that the House might be furnished with such
information with respect to both, as might enable him to judge, whether
there might not be a partial repeal as well of some of the external as
internal taxes, and not a total and exclusive reduction of the latter,
as was contemplated; whilst all the former, however grievous and
inconvenient, were to be retained. Did he then ask any thing which was
unreasonable or improper? Could any possible inconvenience accrue from
allowing him to obtain the information he desired? If not, why refuse to
indulge him in what he deemed useful, and what (at the worst) could only
be regarded by gentlemen themselves as superfluous information? Was it
fair; was it becoming; did it comport with that civility and politeness
which was due from the one to the other, by citizens of a common
country, assembled together for the express purpose of consulting upon
their common interests, to treat thus cavalierly what must at least be
allowed to be a respectable minority?

With respect to the two only reasons which had ever been offered in
favor of the exclusive repeal of the internal tax, viz: the expense and
number of officers required to collect it, was it not the immediate and
precise object of the resolution under debate to inquire whether it was
not possible to devise some means by which these inconveniences might be
obviated, or at least greatly lessened? And what objection could there
be to the inquiry? Were gentlemen perfectly and entirely convinced that
nothing of the kind could be done, or were they apprehensive that the
thing was in itself so feasible, that an inquiry of this kind would
throw a stumbling-block in the way of the project already determined on,
which although he would freely acknowledge, that as an abstract
proposition it was expedient as much as possible, and to collect your
taxes at as small an expense, and by means of as few agents as
conveniently could be done, yet there was another still more important
maxim which ought never to be lost sight of: this was, that the burdens
of the Government, as well as the advantages which flowed from it,
should be fairly, equally, impartially, and equitably distributed among
every description of the citizens, in whatever part of the country they
resided. If, therefore, it did happen, that a few more officers and a
somewhat greater percentage were required to collect the taxes in one
than in another part of the country, this alone would most certainly and
indubitably not be a sufficient reason to do away all the taxes in the
one, and throw the whole burden of the Government on the inhabitants of
the other.

Mr. RUTLEDGE confessed himself much puzzled by the new forms of
proceeding this day adopted. Ever since he had had the honor of a seat
in Congress, it had been invariably the practice, when measures were
proposed not agreeable to the majority, for them to offer their
objections to them. This had ever been the practice, and the experience
of its convenience offered strong reasons for its continuance. When the
majority stated their objections to any measure, the minority in
sustaining it answered them fully; thus, both sides acted
understandingly, and when the proceedings of the National Legislature
went out to the people, they were at the same time informed of the
reasons under which their Representatives had legislated. This had not
only been the usage in Congress, but the form of proceeding in all
representative bodies with whose history we are acquainted. Even in the
British House of Commons, which gentlemen had often and emphatically
styled a mockery of representation, so great is the respect paid to
public opinion, that the majority deem it their duty to assign in debate
the reasons of their conduct. Although the Minister in England has quite
as much confidence in the strength of his majority as gentlemen here can
have in theirs, yet, in feeling power, he does not forget right, and
his regard for public opinion is so great, that he never secures his
measures by a silent vote. In these days of innovation, we, it seems,
are to pursue a different course. When the resolution offered this
morning by his honorable friend from New York (Mr. MORRIS) was taken
into consideration, not a voice was raised against it. This profound
silence made us expect a unanimous vote; but, in consequence, he
supposed, of some outdoor arrangements, it was rejected by this silent
majority. He had seen many deliberative assemblies, but never before
witnessed such a procedure. He would not say whether this was respectful
towards the minority, who, we have been told from high authority, have
their equal rights--he would not say whether it was dignified as it
regarded the majority, but, without pretending to any spirit of
prophecy, he would venture to say it could not be deemed politic or wise
by the people of this country.

When the doors of Congress were open, and persons admitted to take the
debates, the people expected to be fully informed of the views and
motives which governed the votes of their Representatives. But it seems
our constituents are not to be treated with this heretofore common
civility. In proposing measures we are obliged to guess at what
gentlemen feel against them, (for they say nothing,) and to defend them,
without knowing in what they are objectionable to those who govern in
this House. This kind of governing is but ill calculated to produce
harmony, to restore social intercourse, and to heal the wounds inflicted
on society by the spirit of party.

The question was taken, and it passed in the negative--yeas 37, nays 57.

_Duties on Imports._

Mr. RUTLEDGE called up for consideration the resolution which he moved
on Friday, on which the previous question was then taken, viz:

      "_Resolved_, That the Committee of Ways and Means be
      instructed particularly to inquire into the expediency of
      reducing the duties on brown sugar, coffee, and bohea tea."

Mr. GRISWOLD hoped the resolution would be decided upon.

Mr. RUTLEDGE hoped the reference would obtain. These articles paid the
highest rate of duties and were of the first necessity. In looking over
the rates of duties on imports, he saw many articles that were taxed
enormously high. Those in the resolution were of the first necessity,
the duty high, and laid when they were at war prices; while the people
received war prices for their produce, they could with convenience pay
for these articles, though high. The object of the resolution was merely
to inquire, and he did not see how it could interfere with any object
gentlemen have in view.

Mr. DANA.--I beg liberty to tender the homage of my profound respects,
for the dignified situation in which gentlemen have now placed
themselves, and congratulate them on their silence. There is something
peculiarly impressive in this mode of opposing every thing that is
urged. It is seldom that gentlemen have exhibited such a remarkable
appearance of a philosophical assembly.

"That dumb Legislature will immortalize your name"--is said to have been
the language of a certain distinguished General to a certain nominal
Abbé, who has been represented as having pigeon-holes full of
constitutions of his own making. During the memorable night at St.
Cloud, when the French Council of Ancients, and Council of Five Hundred,
were adjourned--to meet no more--it may be recollected, the powers of
executive government were provisionally committed to three persons,
styled Consuls, and two of them were the General and the Abbé. From each
of the Councils, twenty-five members were selected, to compose a
commission, and assist the provisional Consuls in preparing a
constitution for France. Of the numerous projects of constitutions
presented by the Abbé, it is said no part was finally adopted except the
plan of a dumb Legislature. This, the General instantly seized with
apparent enthusiasm, exclaiming to the Abbé, "that dumb Legislature will
immortalize your name!" And it was determined to have a _corps
legislatif_ that should vote, but not debate.

It was scarcely to be expected that any thing like this would soon take
place in our own country. But it is the prerogative of great geniuses,
when in similar circumstances, to arrive at the same great results,
although with some difference in the process. Nor can I forbear offering
my tribute of admiration, for the genius who has projected a mode of
proceeding among us, that so nearly rivals the plan adopted in France. I
know not to whom is due the honor of this luminous discovery. After
ascribing to him, however, all merited glory, permit me to examine the
force of the argument relied on by gentlemen in opposition to the
proposed resolution.

Their argument is silence. I hope to be excused if I do not discuss this
subject in the most satisfactory manner; as silence is a new species of
logic, about which no directions have been found in any treatise on
logic that I have ever seen. It will be my endeavor to reply to
gentlemen by examining some points which may be considered as involved
in their dumb arguments.

One of these points is--that certain members of this House have pledged
themselves to their constituents, for repealing all the internal taxes.
They may have declared their opinions to this effect, before the
election; and, being chosen under such circumstances, may now deem
themselves bound in honor not to vary. The terms assented to between
their constituents and themselves may, therefore, be viewed by them as
the particular rule of their own conduct. But is this House to be
regarded in the same light with the English House of Commons, during
the early period of their history, when the knights of shires, and the
representatives of cities and boroughs, were instructed on what terms
they should bargain with the Crown for special privileges, and were
limited to the price agreed on by their constituents? The situation of
gentlemen who have thus pledged themselves to vote for repealing the
internal taxes, must be irksome, indeed, if on mature consideration they
should believe it more proper and more beneficial for the country to
have other taxes reduced. Those who have entered into a stipulation of
this sort, so as to feel it as a point of honor, are so peculiarly
circumstanced that they might think it too assuming in me, were I so
much as to express a desire that they would vote for reducing some of
the duties on imports, instead of repealing all the internal taxes. It
is to be hoped, the number of members who have pledged themselves in
this manner, does not exceed twenty-five or thirty.

Another point involved in this argument of silence is, that other
gentlemen may have pledged themselves to these, and given them a promise
of support on this subject. It must be acknowledged that this was more
than was required on account of their seat in this House. If any
gentlemen have absolutely so pledged themselves to their constituents,
it must indeed be difficult to convince them. On this point, their minds
must be so differently constituted from mine, that there does not seem
to be any common principle between us that can be assumed as the basis
of argumentation.

Another point is, the Executive has recommended a repeal of all the
internal taxes, and not any reduction of the impost. And will gentlemen
act upon this as a sufficient reason for their conduct? Is it now to
become a principle, that the Executive is to deliberate, and the
Legislature to act, and that no measure is to be adopted unless proposed
by the Executive? Would it not be better for the country to abolish this
House, and to avoid useless expense, if it is to be nothing more than
one of the ancient Parliaments of France, employed to register the
edicts of a master?

The silence of the gentlemen may also be considered as having relation
to their great desire for the harmony of social intercourse. To prevent
its being disturbed in the House by debating, they may have come to a
determination that all the great questions shall be settled by gentlemen
of a certain description, when met in nocturnal conclave, and be only
voted upon in this place. If such be the fact, it seems but reasonable
that any of the members of this House should be admitted in meetings of
the conclave, as delegates from the territorial districts are admitted
into Congress, with a right to debate, although not to vote. If,
however, this is thought too much, gentlemen should at least have
galleries provided, so that other members of the Legislature might be
admitted as spectators, and have the opportunity of knowing the reasons
for public measures.

The question was called for, when Mr. EUSTIS begged the Speaker would
state it, as, in listening to the arguments of the gentleman from
Connecticut, he had forgotten it.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said he was much pleased by the question of the honorable
gentleman from Massachusetts. When gentlemen ask, What is the question?
it is to be hoped that they will respect its merits; but, from the scene
this day acted, he had learned that the only inquiry with gentlemen
would be, from what side does this come?

The question was then taken by yeas and nays, and lost--yeas 35, nays
58.


TUESDAY, January 26.

_Territorial Government for the District of Columbia._

Mr. SPRIGG reported a bill for the government of the Territory of
Columbia.

[The bill establishes a Legislature, chosen by the taxable citizens of
the United States one year resident in the Territory, composed of a
House of Representatives, to consist of twenty-five members, seven
whereof to be chosen by the district of Rock Creek, seven from the part
west of Rock Creek, and eleven by the county of Alexandria. The Governor
to be appointed by the President of the United States. The Territory to
pay the Legislature, and the United States the Governor. The judges to
hold their offices during life, unless removed by the President on the
application of two successive Legislatures.]

Referred to the Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

A memorial and remonstrances of sundry inhabitants of the county and
town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, was presented to the
House and read, praying that Congress will not agree to any plan, or
pass any bill respecting the government of the said District, which
shall, by the establishment of a subordinate Legislative or subordinate
Executive, or otherwise, tend to unite under its power, the two parts of
the district, as separated by the river Potomac.--Referred to the
Committee of the whole House last appointed.


THURSDAY, January 28.

_Lieutenant Sterret, his Officers and Crew._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of
a select committee of the nineteenth instant, on the resolutions of the
Senate, in the form of joint resolutions of the two Houses, "in respect
to Lieutenant Sterret, the officers, and crew of the United States'
schooner Enterprise;" to which Committee of the whole House were also
referred the said resolutions of the Senate; and, after some time spent
therein, the SPEAKER resumed the chair, and Mr. Davis reported that the
committee had had the said report and resolutions under consideration,
and directed him to repeat to the House their disagreement to the said
resolutions of the Senate, and their agreement to two resolutions
contained in the report of the select committee thereupon, in the form
of joint resolutions of the two Houses; which he delivered in at the
Clerk's table.

The House then proceeded to consider the said report and resolutions:
Whereupon, the resolutions of the Senate, to which the Committee of the
whole House reported their disagreement, being twice read at the Clerk's
table, in the words following, to wit:

      _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
      United States of America in Congress assembled_, That, as a
      testimony of the high sense they entertain of the nautical
      skill and gallant conduct of Lieutenant Andrew Sterret,
      commander of the United States' schooner Enterprise,
      manifested in an engagement with, and in the capture of, a
      Tripolitan corsair, of superior force, in the Mediterranean
      Sea, fitted out by the Bey of that Regency to harass the
      trade, capture the vessels, and enslave the citizens, of
      these States, the President of the United States be
      requested to present Lieutenant Sterret with a gold medal,
      with such suitable devices thereon, as he shall deem
      proper, and emblematic of that heroic action, and the mercy
      extended to a barbarous enemy, who three times struck his
      colors twice, and recommenced hostilities: an act of
      humanity, however unmerited, highly honorable to the
      American flag and nation; and that the President of the
      United States be also requested to present to each of the
      Lieutenants, Porter and Lawson, of the Navy, and Lieutenant
      Lane of the Marines, who were serving on board the
      Enterprise in the engagement, and contributed, by their
      gallant conduct, to the success of the day, a sword, with
      such suitable devices as the President may deem fit.

      "_Be it further resolved_, In consideration of the intrepid
      behavior of the crew of the Enterprise, under the orders of
      their gallant commander, and their receiving no prize
      money, the corsair being dismantled and released after her
      capture, that one month's pay, over and above the usual
      allowance, be paid to all the other officers, sailors, and
      marines, who were actually on board and engaged in that
      action; for the expenditure of which charge Congress will
      make the necessary appropriation."

The question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of
the whole House in their disagreement to the same, and resolved in the
affirmative.

The resolutions contained in the report of the select committee, to
which the Committee of the whole House reported their agreement, being
twice read, in the words following, to wit:

      "_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
      the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
      they entertain a high sense of the gallant conduct of
      Lieutenant Sterret, and the other officers, seamen, and
      marines, on board the schooner Enterprise, in the capture
      of a Tripolitan corsair, of fourteen guns and eighty men.

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to present to Lieutenant Sterret a sword,
      commemorative of the aforesaid heroic action; and that one
      month's extra pay be allowed to all the other officers,
      seamen, and marines, who were on board the Enterprise when
      the aforesaid action took place."

The question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of
the whole House in their agreement to the same, and resolved in the
affirmative.

_Ordered_, That the said resolutions be engrossed, and read the third
time to-morrow.


MONDAY, February 8.

_Imprisonment for Debt._

Mr. SMILIE called up his resolution that a committee be appointed to
revise the laws respecting imprisonment for debts due the United States.
His objects, he said, were two; to secure the debtor's property, and to
inflict some penalty or provide some remedy instead of imprisonment for
life.

Mr. RUTLEDGE was opposed to imprisonment for life, where the debtor gave
up his whole property, and was unable to pay all. He had known, in South
Carolina, revenue officers imprisoned for debts due the United States,
who had been many years confined; men of good character, men of honesty,
but who, through ignorance of transacting certain business, or their
misfortunes, were unable to pay. He knew an individual of that State who
had applied to that House for relief; his petition was referred to the
Secretary of the Treasury; the Secretary felt a delicacy in interfering
in the case; the petition was not granted; and the person had now been
in jail five years, though his inability to pay did not arise from
having wasted the public money, or from aught but misfortune; for he was
acknowledged to be a man of good character. He was averse to such
cruelty. Hence the necessity of making some provision that the innocent,
when distinctions can, as in most instances, be made, may not be
subjected to cruel punishments, that were of no benefit to the United
States. Why send him to jail? Why lock him up there? Why prevent his
being able to support his family?

Mr. SMILIE.--It is the case that when you exceed in making your laws
what is reasonable, those laws, as the present concerning debtors to the
United States, will not be executed. The present law cannot be put in
execution. He wished some sufficient penalty. This was not the proper
stage to give his sentiments; were it, he should say, he thought the
defaulter ought to give up the property, and perhaps be imprisoned a
period. But the Legislature are not the proper judges, and ought not to
interfere; the Legislative and Judicial Departments should be kept
separate. We want some uniform law, operating on all according to their
demerit.

The subject was postponed till to-morrow.


FRIDAY, February 12.

_State Balances._

Mr. THOMAS called up his motion respecting State Balances, which is as
follows:

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire into
      the expediency of extinguishing the claims of the United
      States for certain balances, which, by the Commissioners
      appointed to settle the accounts between the United States
      and the individual States, were reported to be due from
      several of the States to the United States, and that the
      said committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise."

Mr. BAYARD hoped the resolution would prevail. The debtor States, not
satisfied with the settlement made by the Board of Commissioners, had
asked for information respecting the grounds on which it had been made.
The information had been imperiously refused. In his opinion it was but
right, if the debtor States did not dispute the validity of the debts
due to the creditor States, that they should agree to expunge the claims
against the debtor States. Indeed, he had been assured that the
commission was not instituted with a view of sustaining any charges
against the debtor States, but for ascertaining the amount due to the
creditor States, and funding them; and he believed it had been so
understood at the time. This was an affair not determinable by the
ordinary rules applied to individual cases. Many of the States, not
expecting a settlement, had kept no accounts or vouchers; and however
great the supplies they contributed under such circumstances, they
received no credits for them; while those States which had been most
careful in the preservation of vouchers, shared a different and a better
fate.

Mr. B. believed it was the true policy of the creditor States to agree
to the extinguishment of these balances. He believed they never could be
paid, because no State allowed them to be due. They would not,
therefore, be paid voluntarily; and he knew of no force in the United
States to compel payment. Why, then, keep up a source of irritation,
which could do no possible good, and which could only tend to repel some
States from that constitution, which we all ought to endeavor to make
the object of general affection?

Mr. SOUTHARD said, he had yet heard no reason that convinced him that
the resolution offered was just or proper. It would be recollected that
this contract was made under the confederation. In the establishment of
our independence, great and various exertions had been made. In the
contributions made, great inequalities took place, which were
unavoidable. Generally, where the war existed, the States became
creditor States. It was just that those States which had contributed
more than their share should be repaid, and that those who had paid less
should make up the deficiency. If the debtor States were not to pay
their balances, why settle the accounts? To relinquish the payment would
be, in his opinion, not only unjust but unconstitutional. The
constitution says, "All debts contracted, and engagements entered into,
before the adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the
United States, under this constitution as under the Confederation;" and
the present Government had recognized those debts as just. The gentleman
from Delaware says, the settlement is not just. But this was barely the
suggestion of his own mind. To sustain it, he ought to have shown its
defects; but this he had not done.

Mr. MITCHILL was in favor of the resolution, as he believed a refusal to
adopt it would be attended with unpleasant sensations. He judged so from
an historical review of the business. The several States had associated
together for their common defence, and, in the eye of equity, whatever
that defence required, should constitute a common charge. The accounts
of expenses thus incurred were not settled till the new Government was
established. That Government fixed the mode of settlement; it appointed
a board of referees, to report the debts and credits of the respective
States. In this report, it was the fortune of certain States,
notwithstanding the greatness of their contributions, to be reported
debtor States. These States became debtors from the independent spirit
with which they asserted their sovereign rights. Not relying on the
general contributions, they furnished great supplies without making any
charge to the Union; by exerting all their strength, they paid as they
went, and preserved no vouchers of what they paid. This, he averred, was
the case as to the State which he had the honor in part to represent; a
State as willing as able to contribute, and which did contribute to a
great extent; but which had neglected to preserve her vouchers, the
preservation of which would have made her a creditor State. He believed,
therefore, that in equity, the States were not bound to pay these
balances. But to this it is replied, the award is final. He would not
agree to that; he denied it. Besides, there was a want of coercive power
in the United States to enforce those demands. From this consideration
alone, we ought to proceed with lenity, and endeavor to make the
settlement a peaceable one. As in other circumstances, we ought to make
a virtue of necessity.

Mr. S. SMITH said, he did not rise to take any part in the debate, but
in order to bring the subject directly before the committee. To do
which, he moved so to amend the resolution as to make it read,
"Resolved, That it is expedient to extinguish the claims," &c.

Mr. LOWNDES hoped the amendment would not be agreed to. He did not see
the expediency of volunteering a relinquishment of the claims
established against several of the States. The amendment was calculated
to take the committee by surprise. The original resolution went merely
to consider the expediency of a relinquishment; the amendment involved
the principle itself.

Mr. HILL was desirous the amendment should not be made, not from any
indisposition himself to agree to it, but from a regard to the
sentiments of other gentlemen. Even if it was ascertained that these
debts had arisen on a just consideration, yet, in his opinion, they
ought to be extinguished, from the principle that, in our Government,
whatever hazarded the harmony of the Union, ought to be avoided.
Precedents were not wanting in which sacrifices were made to this
principle. He alluded to the quieting the claims under Connecticut
rights. But, whatever might be the general ideas on this subject
elsewhere, he knew not a man in North Carolina, who did not believe the
adjustment iniquitous. To show the committee how the citizens of that
State felt, he would state a case that had occurred before the Board of
Commissioners. Two claims had been made, both for the same amount and
the same description of supplies, one on one side and one on the other
side, of Pedee River; one in North, and the other in South Carolina;
and, in one case, seven shillings had been allowed, and in the other,
only sixpence for the bushel of wheat. The business generally was
entitled to the attention of Congress. It had, in fact, already been
attended to at different times. New York had extinguished eight hundred
thousand dollars of her balance under certain provisions applied to her
case.

Mr. BACON said, if the object of the motion was to go into a new
liquidation of the old accounts between the United States and the
several States, it would not only take up every day of the present
session, but the work would be left unfinished for our successors. These
debts had been incurred in a common cause, in which each State was
equally interested, and towards which each State was bound equally to
contribute. When Congress made requisitions on this principle, they were
accompanied by a promise that there should be a final liquidation. This
liquidation was made; the settlement was complete. But this settlement
is now objected to, and what is to be done? Why we must annul the
contract. This might satisfy some of the States, but he was sure it
would dissatisfy others. He saw, therefore, no end to be answered by the
motion. We must either set aside all that had been done, and begin _de
novo_, to which this body is incompetent, or rest satisfied with what is
already done.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS observed, that since he had held a seat in the House,
this subject had been almost every session called up. The more he had
heard it discussed, the more he became convinced of the necessity of
getting it out of the way. He found that whenever it was brought up, all
was imagination. One State contended that it had contributed largely,
and another, that its exertions had not been surpassed.

We are asked, why relinquish these balances before we are solicited by
the States? He would reply that North Carolina never had recognized the
debt, and, in his opinion, never would apply for its extinguishment. He
was in favor of the amendment, because the principle ought to be
decided here, and not in a select committee. What, indeed, could such
committee report? There were no vouchers or books whereon the settlement
had been made to be got at. All they could do, then, would be to report
the balances alleged to be due, which any member could at any time
learn.

It seemed almost useless to go into arguments to show the injustice of
the claim, and of consequence, the justice of the resolution. It had
been justly said, that those States which had contributed the most, had,
by the report of the Commissioners, the most to pay; and this was
peculiarly so with the State of North Carolina.

Mr. W. had forborne to dwell on the injustice of these demands. But were
he to enter on that branch of the discussion, he should say that the
very act of destroying all the vouchers was of itself sufficient to
justify any suspicion. He should say, that for what, in some States,
there had been an allowance of one hundred pounds, North Carolina had
not been allowed twenty shillings. Could, then, gentlemen talk of moral
obligation, and say that this was a just debt?

Mr. T. MORRIS said, it was contended that the accounts should be opened
anew and re-examined. The fears, therefore, of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, were entirely visionary. The resolution was a simple one.
It proposes to inquire into the expediency of doing away these debts.
The amendment goes to determine the principle here. He thought it proper
the principle should be settled here. But gentlemen say they want
information. If so, after the amendment is agreed to, they may move for
a postponement. If the amendment were carried, he would himself move a
postponement.

It had been said that New York had had eight hundred thousand dollars of
her debt remitted by the United States. But how did the case really
stand? New York had availed herself of the act of Congress, not because
she acknowledged the debt to be just, but because she preferred doing
something to remaining in the situation towards the United States in
which she stood. It was strange, then, to hear gentlemen say that New
York had been favored. What was the fact? North Carolina, according to
the gentleman, had not, and would not, pay one cent; and New York had
discharged a greater sum than was due by all the other debtor States,
with the exception of Delaware. She was, therefore, instead of being
favored, placed in a worse situation than any other State. It was from
the existence of this state of things that he wished a final decision to
be made this session. New York having agreed to make certain payments to
the United States, it was important to her to know whether the United
States meant to enforce payment by the other States. Her situation would
be truly unfortunate, if after agreeing to pay, the United States
suffered her claims against the other States to sleep. She would not
only have to pay her quota of the debts, but would see no prospect of
deriving her share of benefit from the payments of the other debtor
States.

Mr. MACON said the subject was a very old one, which had occupied much
time every session for many years, and he thought it would be as well to
try the question now as at any other time. No information of a select
committee could throw any new light upon it.

There was a fact which ought to have great weight with the committee.
One of the Commissioners who made the settlement, who was a member of
this House, had, after the settlement, proposed a resolution to
extinguish the balances of the debtor States; and he had stated, as a
reason for this measure, that the principle adopted by the board had
operated very harshly upon particular States. Mr. M. had it from
authority not to be questioned, that in the settlement by the
Commissioners, teams, with the usual number of horses, had not produced
twenty shillings.

This subject had hung over our heads for eight years, and no scheme was
yet devised for collecting the balances. How could they be collected?
Congress had, it is true, authorized expenditures by the States in the
erection of fortifications; but this very act was a tacit confession of
the impracticability of getting the money into the public Treasury. As
to a settlement with North Carolina, it was involved in great
difficulty. In the act of cession of lands by that State to the United
States, it was provided that the territory ceded should be pledged to
pay a proportional share of the balance due the United States. How could
that share be estimated?

Mr. M. regretted that this subject had been brought up. He should not
himself have been for bringing it up, for he thought the claims of the
United States not worth a rush. The truth was, the States had all
exerted themselves in one great and common cause; they had done their
best; they had acted with great glory. As to the State which he
represented, he would ask if the first blood that had been spilled after
that shed at Boston was not in North Carolina? and that was the blood of
brother against brother. He desired not, however, to make comparisons,
which were always unpleasant, but to show that North Carolina had no
reason to shrink from an inquiry which would demonstrate that she had
fully contributed her share in the common cause, without meaning to
assert that she had done more than other States. Let, then, Congress
decide at once, and abandon the claims altogether, or devise some plan
for collecting them, that we may know how we stand.

Mr. DANA said, I hope the amendment will not be agreed to. However
gentlemen may be possessed of a wholesale intellect, that enables them
to decide on interesting questions without a moment's reflection, I
confess I am not blessed with so happy an intuition. I do not know that
I have ever been called upon to form an opinion on this subject. As to
a reference of it to a committee, I think their investigation may be
useful, and after we get that, we may take time to decide. But now the
plan is changed, and we are called upon to decide at once the principle.
This mode of transacting business may be called an economy of time. You
may give it the name, but it is not the substance. For my part, I desire
to proceed according to our old plan, and go through the slow process of
investigation. This is my way, and gentlemen may rest assured that this
mode of hurrying business is not the way to save time, but to lose it.

Mr. BAYARD declared himself in favor of the amendment, and he could not
think, notwithstanding the remarks of his honorable friend from
Connecticut, that any gentleman in the House was unprepared to vote upon
it. The subject had been frequently discussed, and he believed that the
House was then as well prepared for a decision as they would be for a
century to come. It involved but a single principle; and, as to
information, he could scarcely tell what information was wanted. He felt
much of the indifference of the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr.
MACON.) He was sure the United States had neither the right, nor the
power to recover these balances; and he repeated it as his opinion, that
it had not been the original intention that the debtor States should pay
them. Will gentlemen recollect that the commission was instituted under
the old Confederation. Had Congress, then, a right to do any thing to
bind the sovereignties of the independent States? All they could do was
to pass resolutions making requisitions, which the States might or might
not comply with. They could appoint Commissioners to settle the
accounts, but could they impose the debts upon the States? No, they
could not. It, therefore, never could have been contemplated that they
would establish those debts. The only effect that could have been
contemplated, was, that the creditor States might rely that, on a
settlement, Congress would assume their balances.

On the question being put, the amendment was lost--yeas 41, nays 46.

When the original resolution for referring to a select committee the
consideration of the expediency of extinguishing the balances was
carried.

_Ordered_, That Mr. THOMAS, Mr. BAYARD, Mr. DANA, Mr. HILL, and Mr.
BUTLER, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the said resolution.

And the House adjourned.


TUESDAY, February 16.

_Judiciary System._

The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the Judiciary bill
from the Senate.[66]

Mr. HENDERSON.--I should not rise to offer my opinion on the great
question before the committee, were I not placed in a situation
different from that in which I have been since I have had the honor of a
seat in this House. The Legislature of the State of North Carolina, one
of whose representatives I am on this floor, have seen proper to
instruct their Senators and to recommend to their Representatives in
Congress, to use their exertions to procure a repeal of the law passed
the last session of Congress, for the more convenient organization of
the Courts of the United States, and the bill on your table has for its
object the repeal of this law, and as I shall probably vote against its
passage, a decent respect for the opinions of those who have framed and
sent forward those resolutions, demands that I should give the reasons
which influence my conduct.

The people of America have obtained and established that the powers of
Government shall be vested in three great departments; the Legislative,
the Executive, and the Judicial. They have said that there shall be a
House of Representatives, the members of which shall be chosen by the
people of the several States every second year. Though this House is
composed of members chosen by the people immediately; though they can
have no other interest than the great community from which they were
sent; though they must return to the common mass in the short period of
two years; yet enlightened America did not see proper to intrust the
power of making laws to this body alone; they knew that the history of
man, and the experience of ages, bore testimony against the safety of
committing this high power to any one Assembly not checked by any other
body. They have therefore erected another branch of the Legislature,
called the Senate, the members of which are not to be elected by the
people immediately, but by the sovereignties of the several States; they
are to be chosen for six years, and not for two; and the qualifications
requisite to entitle those to a seat is different from that of a member
of this House. To these bodies are given the power of initiating all
laws; but after a bill has passed both of these Houses, before it
becomes of binding obligation on the nation, it must be approved of by
the President; it is a dead letter until life is given by the Executive.
The President is elected not by the people, not by the Legislatures of
the several States, not by either House of Congress, but by Electors
chosen by the people. He is to hold his office during four years. This
is the second great department of the Government. It will be easily
discovered from this cursory view of our constitution, the caution and
jealousy with which the people have conferred the power of making laws,
of commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong. But, sir,
after this law was made, after its authoritative mandate was
acknowledged by the nation, it became necessary to establish some
tribunal to judge of the extent and obligation of this law. The people
did not see proper to intrust this power of judging of the meaning of
their laws, either to the Legislative or to the Executive, because they
participated in the making of these laws; and experience had shown that
it is essential for the preservation of liberty that the Judicial and
Legislative authorities should be kept separate and distinct. They
therefore enacted a third department, called the Judicial, and said that
"the Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme
Court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The judges both of the Supreme and inferior courts
shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall at stated times
receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished
during their continuance in office."

It is admitted, I understand, by all parties, by every description of
persons, that these words, "shall hold their offices during good
behavior," are intended as a limitation of power. The question is, what
power is thus to be limited and checked? I answer, that all and every
power which would have had the authority of impairing the tenure by
which the judges hold their offices, (if these words were not inserted,)
is checked and limited by these words; whether that power should be
found to reside in Congress, or in the Executive. These words are broad
and extensive in their signification, and can only be satisfied by being
construed to control the Legislative as well as the Executive power. But
gentlemen contend that they must be confined to limiting the power of
the President. I ask gentlemen, what is there in the constitution to
prove their signification to this end alone? When you erect a court and
fill it with a judge, and tell him in plain, simple language, that he
shall hold his office during good behavior, or as long as he shall
behave well; what, I beseech you, sir, will any man, whose mind is not
bewildered in the mazes of modern metaphysics, infer from the
declaration? Certainly that the office will not be taken from him until
he misbehaves; nor that he will be taken from the office during his good
behavior. Under this impression he enters upon his duty, performing it
with the most perfect satisfaction to all persons who have business
before him; and the Legislature, without whispering a complaint,
abolishes the office and thereby turns out the judge. The judge is told
this is no violation of the compact; although you have behaved well,
although we have promised that as long as you did behave well you should
continue in office, yet, there is now no further necessity for your
services, and you may retire. These words, "during good behavior," are
intended to prevent the President from dismissing you from office, and
not the Legislature from destroying your office. Do you suppose, sir,
that there is a man of common understanding in the nation, whose mind is
not alive to the influence of party spirit, that would yield his assent
to this reasoning? I hope and believe there is not. But, sir, how is it
proved that the President would have had the power of removing the
judges from their office, if these words, "during good behavior," had
not been inserted in the constitution? Are there any words in that
instrument which give the President expressly the power of removing any
officer at pleasure? If there are, I call upon gentlemen to point them
out; it does not result from the fashionable axiom, that the power which
can create can destroy. The President can nominate, but he can appoint
to office only by the advice and consent of the Senate. Therefore, it
would follow, if the power of displacing results from that of creating,
that the Senate should participate in displacing as well as creating
officers. But however this may be, it is certainly a mere constructive
power which he has exercised, because the Legislature have, from motives
of expediency, acknowledged that he had it. If the constitution does not
necessarily give the President the right of removing officers at
pleasure, and if that right depend upon Legislative acts or
constructions, where would have been the necessity for inserting these
emphatic words as a check and limitation of Executive power, where
without them the President has no such power? You are taking great pains
to control a power which does not exist. The persons who framed our
constitution knew that a power of removal in ordinary cases must exist
somewhere. They took care, therefore, that in whatever hands it might
fall, the language of the constitution respecting the tenure of the
office of a judge should be co-extensive with the whole power of
removal, whether it should reside in one or in more hands.

But it has been said that the powers of each Congress are equal, and
that a subsequent Legislature can repeal the acts of a former; and as
this law was passed by the last Congress, we have the same power to
repeal it which they had to enact it. This objection is more plausible
than solid. It is not contended by us that legislatures who are not
limited in their powers have not the same authority. The question is not
what omnipotent Assemblies can do, but what _we_ can do under a
constitution defining and limiting with accuracy the extent and
boundaries of our authority. The very section in the constitution (sec.
third, art. first) which I have read, is a proof against the power of
every Congress to repeal the acts of their predecessors. In the latter
part of the eighth section it is proposed that the judges shall receive
for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during
their continuance in office; and yet the salary was ascertained and
fixed by a former Congress. The same observations may be made with
respect to compensation for the President, which can neither be
increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been
elected. It is not competent for this Congress to vary the compensation
to him which has been fixed by a prior Legislature. It is clearly seen,
upon a little investigation, that the position which gentlemen take is
too extensive, and leads immediately to a destruction of the
constitution. It does away all check, and makes the Legislature
omnipotent. It has been asked, that if a corrupt and unprincipled
Congress should make an army of judges, have not a subsequent Congress
the right of repealing the law establishing this monstrous judicial
system? I answer that they have not; the same mode of reasoning which
attempts to prove this right from an abuse of power will also prove that
you may lessen the compensation of your judges. May not equal oppression
be imposed upon the people by giving your judges exorbitant salaries as
by increasing their numbers? May not the same corrupt and unprincipled
motive which would lead men to the raising of an army of judges lead
them to squander the public money? And may they not, instead of giving
their judges two thousand dollars a year, give them two hundred
thousand? And yet, sir, if it were to take place, I know of no authority
under the constitution to lessen that exorbitant compensation. The
Government of our country is predicated upon a reasonable confidence in
those who administer our public affairs. They must have the power of
acting for the public welfare, and this would never have been given them
if the possible abuse of this power were a sufficient reason for
withholding it.

Again, sir, the construction which gentlemen on the other side of the
House contend for, tends to the concentration of Legislative and
Executive powers in the same hands. If Congress, who have the power of
making laws, can also displace their judges by repealing that which
creates the offices they fill, the irresistible consequence is, that
whatever law is passed the judges must carry into execution, or they
will be turned out of office. It is of little importance to the people
of this country whether Congress sit in judgment upon their laws
themselves, or whether they sit in judgment upon those who are appointed
for that purpose. It amounts to the same despotism; they in fact judge
the extent and obligations of their own statutes by having those in
their power who are placed on the sacred seat of justice. Whatever the
Legislature declares to be law must be obeyed. The constitutional check
which the judges were to be on the Legislature is completely done away.
They may pass ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, suspend the writ
of habeas corpus in time of peace, and the judge who dares to question
their authority is to be hurled from his seat. All the ramparts which
the constitution has erected around the liberties of the people, are
prostrated at one blow by the passage of this law. The monstrous and
unheard of doctrine which has been lately advanced, that the judges have
not the right of declaring unconstitutional laws void, will be put into
practice by the adoption of this measure. New offences may be created by
law. Associations and combinations may be declared treason, and the
affrighted and appalled citizen may in vain seek refuge in the
independence of your courts. In vain may he hold out the constitution
and deny the authority of Congress to pass a law of such undefined
signification, and call upon the judges to protect him; he will be told
that the opinion of Congress now is, that we have no right to judge of
their authority; this will be the consequence of concentrating Judicial
and Legislative power in the same hands. It is the very definition of
tyranny, and wherever you find it, the people are slaves, whether they
call their Government a Monarchy, Republic, or Democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I see, or think I see, in this attempt, that spirit of
innovation which has prostrated before it a great part of the old
world--every institution which the wisdom and experience of ages had
reared up for the benefit of man. A spirit which has rode in the
whirlwind and directed the storm, to the destruction of the fairest
portion of Europe; which has swept before it every vestige of law,
religion, morality, and rational government; which has brought twenty
millions of people at the feet of one, and compelled them to seek refuge
from their complicated miseries in the calm of despotism. It is against
the influence of this tremendous spirit that I wish to raise my voice,
and exert my powers, weak and feeble as they are. I fear, sir, on the
seventh of December, it made its appearance within these walls, clothed
in a gigantic body, impatient for action. I fear it has already begun to
exert its all-devouring energy. Have you a judiciary system extending
over this immense country, matured by the wisdom of your ablest and best
men? It must be destroyed. Have you taxes which have been laid since
the commencement of the Government? And is the irritation consequent
upon the laying of taxes worn off? Are they paid exclusively by the
wealthy and the luxurious part of the community? And are they pledged
for the payment of the public debt? They must be abolished. Have you a
Mint establishment, which is not only essentially necessary to protect
the country against the influx of base foreign metals, but is a splendid
attribute of sovereignty? It must be abolished. Have you laws which
require foreigners coming to your country to go through a probationary
state, by which their habits, their morals, and propensities may be
known, before they are admitted to all the rights of native Americans?
They must be repealed, and our shores crowded with the outcasts of
society, lest oppressed humanity then should find no asylum on this
globe!


THURSDAY, February 18.

A message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
transmitting a letter from the Secretary of War on the subject of
certain lands in the neighborhood of our military posts, on which it
might be expedient for the Legislature to make some provisions. A letter
was also received from the Governor of Indiana, on the same subject. The
said Message and letter were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

_The Judiciary Bill._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to repeal certain acts
respecting the organization of the Courts of the United States and for
other purposes."

Mr. STANLEY.--Mr. Chairman, every measure which is brought under the
consideration of a Legislature must first be tested by its expediency.
Unhappily, in the present instance, another question arises--its
constitutionality. I will endeavor, concisely, to examine the subject on
both those points. And, first, as to the expediency of the measure. In
order to form a correct estimate between the present Judiciary system of
the courts of the United States and that for which it was substituted,
it is proper to take a comparative view of both.

Under the former system, there were six judges of the Supreme Court of
the United States, who held two sessions of the Supreme Court in each
year, at the seat of Government. Those judges also held in each State a
circuit court, two terms in each year, in which the judge of the
district was associated with the circuit judge. The organization of the
district courts having jurisdiction, principally, of matters affecting
the revenue and admiralty causes, not being connected with the present
question, need not be examined. From the errors of this system resulted,
first, a delay of justice. The judges bound to hold courts in succession
at remote parts of the continent, were continually travelling; from the
variety of accidents to which travellers are subjected in this country,
from the condition of roads and overflowing of rivers, it frequently
happened that the judges failed in their attempts to get to the courts,
or arrived so late that little business was done. Suitors, jurors, and
witnesses, were subjected to the trouble and expense of attending courts
without the accomplishment of their business; hence resulted a delay of
justice. In the State to which I belong, during the few years existence
of the former system, this was the case frequently.

Another great evil resulting from that system was, its tendency to
lessen the character and respectability of the Federal bench. Those best
acquainted with the profession of the law will most readily admit, that
even a life of patient study is unequal to the complete attainment of
principles and rules; and that much labor and industry are necessary to
preserve that which is gained. Consequently, that extent of legal
knowledge, correctness of judgment, and respectability of character,
which should designate the persons qualified for this important trust
were seldom to be found, but in men far advanced in years. Men
possessing these qualifications, not inured to labor, are seldom equal
to the fatigue of their duty; or, if at the time of appointment, fast
approaching to the infirmities of age, were not to be expected to
relinquish the enjoyments of private life for an office, which, however
honorable, subjected them to the fatigue of a day laborer. The office,
with its incumbrances, was, as it were, offered to the lowest bidder.
And men best qualified to honor the bench, were driven from it. True it
is, men have been found eminently uniting virtue and talents, who have
accepted the office under all its distressing circumstances, but we owe
this rather to their patriotism than to the advantages of the situation.
Let it also be remembered that, in some instances, gentlemen who would
have adorned the seat of justice of any country, were compelled to
relinquish their seats; and in others, refused to accept the
appointment.

Another error of that system was, that the judges of the Supreme Court,
the court in the last resort, before whom the errors of the inferior
circuit courts were to be corrected, were the same men who presided in
those circuit courts. With great deference for the opinions of gentlemen
who prefer that system, I pronounce my opinion, that its errors were
radical; that those who justly estimated the importance to our interest
and national character, of a speedy and correct administration of
justice, ought to have desired a change. The present system has happily
obviated these errors. The States are divided into six circuits; in each
State is appointed one judge, called a circuit judge; the judges of the
States, composing one circuit, ride together into the States of their
circuit, and together hold the court. The much smaller distance which
those judges have to travel than the circuit judges, under the former
system, secure their due attendance; a portion of their time is left
them to study and reflection, and the same persons presiding at
successive terms, a uniformity of decision is preserved. The six former
judges hold the Supreme Court, with original constitutional jurisdiction
in matters of the utmost national importance, and appellate
jurisdiction, in certain cases, where the sum in dispute is two thousand
dollars; they are also the court in which the errors of the circuit
court are examined and corrected.

It is objected against the act proposed to be repealed, that a dangerous
patronage is created by it for the President. I shall pass over what I
consider an inconsistency in this objection coming from gentlemen who
profess that implicit confidence is due to the man chosen by the people,
who, in his appointments, speaks not less the voice of the people than
the voice of God, and examine the weight of the objection. If this
apprehended patronage means the power of appointing the Judiciary, that
power is given by the constitution, and is the same, whether the power
of the Judiciary be vested in six or in sixteen judges. If it fear an
undue control over the people in favor of the Executive, through the
Judiciary, make the judges as independent as we contend they are and
ought to be, and they are placed beyond the necessity of descending to
the practice of improper means to preserve Executive favor.

We have been told, sir, that it is necessary the judges should ride into
the States to gain a knowledge of the laws by which, in many cases, they
are to decide. Until this occasion I have never heard that the laws of a
country could only be acquired in the atmosphere of that country where
they are in force. Nine-tenths of the decisions in our State courts and
Federal courts turn on questions of common law; yet, has it ever been
suggested that an American judge was incompetent to decide on common law
questions, because he had not studied in England? No, sir, the knowledge
in both cases may be acquired in the closet. To these observations
permit me to add, that the remonstrances from the bar of Philadelphia,
composed of gentlemen no less celebrated for the respectability of their
private than of their professional character, who, on this occasion, so
interesting to the welfare of their country, have sacrificed their
political prejudices, strongly expressing their decided preference of
the present system to the former, is, to my mind, conclusive, that it
ought to be preferred. I am, therefore, of opinion, that it is
inexpedient to pass the present repealing bill; and so long as my
opinion is supported by the respectable authority I have just alluded
to, and opposed only by the objections which I have noticed, I shall
feel satisfied that opinion is correct.

In approaching the second question which I proposed to examine--the
constitutionality of the measure--whether I reflect on the magnitude of
the question on the one hand, or my inability on the other, I am,
indeed, humbled before the undertaking.

Without examining whether Government, according to the modern opinion,
should be founded on the reason and sense of justice of man, it is
certain our Government is calculated to guard against his weakness and
his wickedness. Our Government has been particularly cautious on this
subject; it has left nothing to the hazard of reason or sense of
justice; it has carefully delegated powers to three distinct
departments, and separated these departments by boundaries plainly
marked and formed, each so as not to control, at least to check, the
other. The Legislative powers, though vested in men chosen frequently
and by the people themselves in one branch, and by the immediate agents
of the people in the other, are nevertheless the object of suspicion and
caution. Their powers, far from resting on their discretion or sense of
expediency, are expressly and cautiously limited. The Executive
conditional veto forms one check on the Legislature; the Judiciary, I
shall contend, are a check on both. Here, permit me to say, that from
the spirit and the words of our constitution, I infer that the Judiciary
are a co-ordinate department with the Executive and Legislative. The
framers of our constitution, satisfied that the powers of well-organized
Governments ought to be divided into three branches--Legislative,
Executive, and Judicial--have nowhere expressly declared there shall be
such departments, but, after premising the objects of the Government,
proceed to ordain how the Legislature shall be composed; and article
two, section two, declares, "The power shall be vested in a President of
the United States of America; he shall hold his office during the term
of four years," and prescribes the mode of election. Article three,
section one, also declares, "The Judicial power of the United States
shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," and the judges of
the supreme and inferior courts shall hold, &c., during good behavior.
By comparing these sections of the constitution, it appears the
Judiciary and the Executive are expressly created by the constitution,
and nothing is left to the discretion of Congress, as to the existence
of these departments; they are created by the same words; and if the
Legislature claim a right to put down the Judiciary at pleasure, before
the happening of that event till which the constitution secures their
offices--their misbehavior--they may as well assume the right to remove
the President before the happening of that event till which his office
is secured, to wit, the expiration of four years. I shall attempt to
establish as a first principle, that the Judiciary are a check on the
Legislature, and thence to show first, that, by the spirit of our
constitution, the Judiciary ought to be independent, beyond the control
or influence of either of the other departments of power; and secondly,
that, by the words of the constitution, they are so secured.

First, then, that the Judiciary are a check on the Legislature. In the
constitution, we find certain powers delegated to Congress; we also find
they are prohibited from exercising certain powers; among which are,
they shall pass no _ex post facto_ law, no bill of attainder, no law
respecting religion, &c. Should, unhappily, a Legislature be found who,
from weakness or wickedness, or the union of both, should transgress the
bounds prescribed, what is the security of the citizen? After all the
experience derived from the example of other Governments, after all the
deliberation and wisdom of our sages who framed the constitution, are we
left, in this important instance, as under the despotism of a monarch,
to seek redress through the throes and convulsions of a revolution? No,
sir. The Judiciary are our security. The Legislature may enact
penalties, and denounce punishments against those who do not yield
obedience to their unconstitutional acts; their penalties cannot be
exacted, nor punishments inflicted, without the judgment of a court. The
judges are to expound the law, and that fundamental, paramount law, the
constitution. To this purpose they are sworn to support the
constitution. While the Judiciary firmly, independently, and uprightly,
discharge their duty and declare the act of the Legislature contrary to
the constitution, to be void, the Legislature are checked, and the
citizen shielded from oppression and persecution. But, ask gentlemen,
whence do the courts derive this power, and the honorable gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. THOMPSON) says, we are contending for this common law
doctrine, that the courts are a check on the Legislature. If I
misunderstood the gentleman, I trust he will correct me. Sir, that
gentleman, I am willing to presume, knows, what I assure him no
gentleman with whom on this occasion I act, is ignorant of, that this is
not a common law doctrine; that in England their courts have no check on
the Legislature--their Parliament are emphatically styled omnipotent,
and if they violate the few natural rights that remain to the citizens,
they have no remedy but in a resort to revolutionary principles; it was
the want of this check to the oppressions of their rulers, which has
produced civil wars, and driven one monarch from his kingdom, and sent
another to the scaffold. This power exists in no other Government,
because under no other Government does there exist a Legislature with
limited powers; under our Government it is the very essence, the
constitution of a court, the oath enjoined on them to support the
constitution. The exercise and the admission of this right are not new
in America; instances must be in the recollection of every gentleman. I
will cite a few most prominent: The honorable member (Mr. THOMPSON) has
been pleased to call the attention of the committee to the examples
drawn from his State; I beg leave to profit from the same source. In
1787, the Legislature of that State passed an act making new
arrangements in the jurisdiction of the courts. The judges, among whom
was that venerable gentleman mentioned by the member from that State,
whose merits and worth command the sincere homage of my respects,
protested against this act, and refused to carry it into effect; the
Legislature acquiesced, and the law was repealed.

Upon the imposition of the carriage tax by Congress, a citizen of
Virginia refused to pay the tax, on the ground that it was
unconstitutionally laid. He was sued for the penalty in the circuit
court of that State, from whence, by writ of error, the suit came before
the Supreme Court; in this case the defendant relied solely on the
unconstitutionality of the act of Congress, and on this ground was
defended by the attorney general of the State of Virginia, and the
attorney general of the State of Pennsylvania. At this time, then, it
appears that these learned gentlemen, the judges, and the citizens,
thought the court competent to relieve in case the law was judged to be
unconstitutional. In 1792, Congress passed an act imposing certain
duties respecting invalid pensioners, upon the judges of the circuit
court. The judges, at the first court after this act, protested against
it; their protests were transmitted to the President of the United
States--that President, who had presided in the General Convention which
framed the constitution, and, therefore, as likely to understand the
powers of Congress on the Judiciary as any other man, so far sanctioned
their opinions as to transmit them to the next Congress, where the act
was reconsidered and repealed. I beg leave, also, to allude to the
authority before mentioned by my friend from Pennsylvania, (Mr.
HEMPHILL,) which I should think of some weight here. It is the opinion
of a gentleman, venerable for his age, respectable for legal knowledge,
and distinguished for what, in the fashionable language of the day, are
termed republican principles. I mean the Executive of Pennsylvania; that
gentleman, in assigning to the Legislature of his State his reasons for
not approving an act they had laid before him, after expressing his
doubts of the constitutionality of the act, declares, "he cannot, from a
confidence in the legal knowledge, integrity, and fortitude of his
former brethren in the Supreme Court, risk his character in a judicial
decision on this question, when he does not see any advantage to be
derived to his country from a possibility of success." If any words can
make more plain the opinion here conveyed, it is that he considers the
judges have the power and will exercise it, to declare the act
unconstitutional.

To my mind, these considerations are satisfactory, that, from the very
constitution of our courts, from the practice and admission of our State
courts and State Legislatures, and Federal courts, and Federal
Legislature, that the judges of the United States, sitting in court,
have the power, and by oath are bound to pronounce, that, an act
contrary to the constitution, is void. From the establishment of this
proposition, that the judges are the expounders of the constitution, and
the laws made under it, and that they are thereby a check on the
Legislature, I shall infer that, by the spirit of our constitution, they
ought to be independent of the other branches of Government, but
particularly so of the Legislature. The concentrating the branches of
power either Executive and Legislative, or Legislative and Judiciary, in
the same hands, is the very essence of tyranny; in proportion as we
advance towards the union of those powers, in the same proportion do we
recede from liberty. Are these departments separate, unconnected--if the
Legislature by any means procure their will either directly or
indirectly, to be substituted for or to overrule judicial judgment?
Whether the Legislature expound and adjudge their acts themselves, or
submit them to the exposition and judgment of a judiciary subservient to
them, is essentially the same. If the Legislature exercise the power of
removal from office by the direct means of a vote of removal, or by the
indirect means, the legislative legerdemain of a repealing act, is
precisely the same thing, the judges are no longer independent, but
dependent on the Legislature for their offices, and subject to their
control; a consequence entirely repugnant to the spirit of our
constitution. I shall attempt to show, that by the words of our
constitution, the judges are placed beyond Legislative control. Article
three, section one: "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior
courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at
stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not
be diminished during their continuance in office." Until the
contemplation of the present measure, I incline to believe, it never
entered the mind of any man acquainted with this clause of the
constitution, that judges should be removed otherwise than by
impeachment for misdemeanor. The advocates for this Legislative power
contend that the tenure of "good behavior" in this article of the
constitution is intended to restrict Executive and not Legislative
power. It does not appear probable that an express restriction should be
introduced against a power which is nowhere expressly granted; for
gentlemen know that the Executive power of removal from office is a
power admitted from construction, and not founded on any thing drawn
from the constitution. I say this rather, because, by the constitution,
the aid of the Senate is necessary to appoint, and _a fortiori_ should
be necessary to remove. It is important to ascertain what was the
intention of the framers of the constitution in introducing the words
"good behavior." The most correct source in our power from which this
aid may be derived, is the writings and opinions at that day of those
who aided in the great work. Among those publications which were written
for the purpose of explaining and recommending this constitution, the
most celebrated are those pieces over the signature of "Publius,"
written by the pens of gentlemen of leading influence in the Convention,
and whose talents and patriotism are still honored by the nation. In
that part of this work which treats of the tenure of the office of
judge during "good behavior," I find this strong expression:

      "The standard of good behavior for the continuance in
      office of the judicial magistracy is certainly one of the
      most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of
      Government. In a monarchy, it is an excellent barrier to
      the despotism of the prince. In a republic, it is a no less
      excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of
      the representative body."

This, sir, to my mind, is conclusive, that the convention intended this
tenure as a restriction no less on Legislative than on Executive power,
and that, in this sense of the phrase, the people of America received
this part of the constitution. In ascertaining the import of the words
"during good behavior," it is certainly important to inquire the end to
which they have been used in other similar cases. My colleague (Mr.
HENDERSON) has, with much abler talents, shown that, in most of the
State constitutions, which existed before our Federal constitution,
these words are used to fix the tenure of offices where the Executive
have neither express nor constructive power of removal; consequently,
they are in those constitutions restrictive of the Legislative power.
If, then, the framers of our constitution borrowed this tenure from
these State constitutions, it is fair and reasonable to conclude they
used them in the sense in which they were previously received. But, says
my colleague on the other side of the House, (Mr. ROBERT WILLIAMS,) the
judges in England hold their offices by the tenure of "good behavior,"
and yet are removable on an address from both Houses of Parliament, and
he infers that the terms may have been taken from England. To this I
will first observe, that no fair argument can be drawn from the
existence of this Legislative power there, for the exercise here. The
mode of appointment there may render such control over the Executive
necessary, which, from the provisions of our constitution, are not
wanted here. In England, the King has the sole power of appointment--the
people have no previous check. In this country, the Executive
appointment is checked by the requisite sanction of the Senate. But is
this Legislative power in Great Britain usurped by construction? No, if
the gentleman will read again the statute of 13 William III., he will
find that this power of removal is expressly granted by the Crown to
Parliament. If, then, one convention had this statute before them, in
adopting that part which relates to the tenure of office, and omitting
that part which gives the power of removal, it is not to be presumed
they intended so important a power should depend on construction. The
same gentleman (Mr. ROBERT WILLIAMS) also contended that it could not be
presumed the convention intended to restrict the power of the
Representatives of the people, the friends of the people. What will the
gentleman say of the correctness of his opinion, when I remind him that
our powers are all expressly restricted; that the same article which
fixes the tenure of "good behavior," expressly and undoubtedly guards
against the power of the Representatives of the people, the friends of
the people, by securing the salaries of the judges undiminished during
their continuance in office.

Mr. GILES said that he felt some degree of apprehension, that, in the
course he deemed it necessary to take in the discussion of this
question, some observations might fall from him which might not be in
strict harmony with the feelings of some gentlemen of the committee. He
should regret, however, if a compliance with a sense of duty should
produce that effect. He said, therefore, that he wished to apprise
gentlemen that he intended to direct his observations as much as
possible to the effects and tendencies of measures; and that when he was
constrained to speak of the views of gentlemen, it would be with respect
to what he conceived to be their opinions in relation to the general
interests, and not to private gratifications. He said it was natural
that men should differ in the choice of means to produce a given end,
and more natural that they should differ in the choice of political
means than any other; because the subject presented more complicated and
variable objects, out of which to make a choice. Accordingly, a great
portion of the human mind has been at all times directed towards
monarchy, as the best form of government to enforce obedience and ensure
the general happiness; whereas another portion of the human mind has
given a preference to the republican form, as best calculated to produce
the same end; and there is no reason for applying improper motives to
individuals who should give a preference to either of the principles,
provided in doing so they follow the honest dictates of their own
judgments. It must be obvious to the most common observer, that, from
the commencement of the Government of the United States, and perhaps
before it, a difference of opinion existed among the citizens, having
more or less reference to these two extreme fundamental points, and that
it manifested itself in the modification or administration of the
Government as soon as it was put in operation. On one side, it was
contended, that in the organization of the constitution a due
apportionment of authority had not been made among the several
departments; that the Legislature was too powerful for the Executive
Department; and to create and preserve a proper equipoise, it was
necessary to infuse into the Executive Department, by legislation, all
artificial powers compatible with the constitution, upon which the most
diffusive construction was given; or, in other words, to place in
Executive hands all the patronage it was possible to create, for the
purpose of protecting the President against the full force of his
constitutional responsibility to the people. On the other side, it was
contended, that the doctrine of patronage was repugnant to the opinions
and feelings of the people; that it was unnecessary, expensive, and
oppressive, and that the highest energy the Government could possess,
would flow from the confidence of the mass of the people, founded upon
their own sense of their common interests. Hence, what is called party
in the United States, grew up from a division of opinion respecting
these two great characteristic principles. Patronage, or the creation of
partial interest for the protection and support of Government, on the
one side: on the other side, to effect the same end, a fair
responsibility of all representatives to the people; an adherence to the
general interests, and a reliance on the confidence of the people at
large, resulting from a sense of their common interests. A variety of
circumstances existed in the United States at the commencement of the
Government, and a great number of favorable incidents continued
afterwards to arise, which gave the patronage system the preponderancy,
during the first three Presidential terms of election; notwithstanding
it was evident, that the system was adopted and pursued in direct
hostility to the feelings and opinions of a great portion of the
American people. The Government was ushered into operation under a vast
excitement of federal fervor, flowing from its recent triumph on the
question of adopting the constitution. At that time a considerable debt
was afloat in the United States, which had grown out of the
Revolutionary war. This debt was of two kinds: the debt proper of the
United States, or engagements made by the United States in their federal
capacity; the other, the State debts or engagements entered into by the
respective States for the support of the common cause.

The favorers of the patronage system readily availed themselves of these
materials for erecting a moneyed interest; gave to it a stability, or
qualified perpetuity, and calculated upon its certain support in all
their measures of irresponsibility.

This was done not only by funding the debt proper of the United States,
but by assuming the payment of the State debts, and funding them also;
and it is believed, extending the assumption beyond the actual
engagements of the States. Hence the Federal axiom, that a public debt
is a public blessing. Shortly after this event, an Indian war sprang
up--he would not say by what means--in consequence of which an army was
added to the list of patronage. The Algerines commenced a predatory war
upon the commerce of the United States, and thence a navy formed a new
item of patronage. Taxes became necessary to meet the expenses of this
system, and an arrangement of internal taxes, an excise, &c., still
swelled the list of patronage. But the circumstance which most favored
this system was, the breaking out of a tremendous and unprecedented war
in those countries of Europe with which the United States had the most
intimate relations. The feelings and sympathies of the people of the
United States were so strongly attracted by the tremendous scenes
existing there, that they considered their own internal concerns in a
secondary point of view. After a variable conduct had been pursued by
the United States in relation to these events, the depredations
committed upon commerce, and the excitements produced thereby, enabled
the Administration to indulge themselves in a more decisive course, and
they at once pushed forward the people to the X, Y, Z, of their
political alphabet, before they had well learned and understood the A,
B, C, of the principles of the Administration.

Armies and navies were raised, and a variety of other schemes of expense
were adopted, which placed the Administration in the embarrassing
predicament, either to violate their faith with their public creditors,
or to resort to new taxes. The latter alternative was preferred,
accompanied with other strong coercive measures to enforce obedience. A
land tax was laid for two millions of dollars. This measure awakened the
people to a sense of their situation; and shook to the foundation all
those federal ramparts which had been planned with so much ingenuity,
and erected around the Executive with so much expense and labor. Another
circumstance peculiarly favorable to the advocates of Executive
patronage was, that during the two first Presidential terms, the Chief
Executive Magistrate possessed a greater degree of popularity and the
confidence of the people than ever was, or perhaps will ever be again
attached to the person occupying that dignified station. The general
disquietude which manifested itself in consequence of these enterprising
measures, in the year 1800, induced the Federal party to apprehend that
they had pushed their principles too far, and they began to entertain
doubts of the result of the Presidential election, which was
approaching. In this state of things, it was natural for them to look
out for some department of the Government in which they could intrench
themselves in the event of an unsuccessful issue in the election, and
continue to support those favorite principles of irresponsibility which
they could never consent to abandon.

The Judiciary Department, of course, presented itself as best fitted for
their object, not only because it was already filled with men who had
manifested the most indecorous zeal in favor of their principles, but
because they held their offices by indefinite tenures, and of course
were further removed from any responsibility to the people, than either
of the other departments. Accordingly, on the 11th of March, 1800, a
bill for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United
States, was presented to the House of Representatives. This bill appears
to have had for its objects, first, the gradual demolition of the State
courts, by increasing the number and extending the jurisdiction of the
Federal courts. Second, to afford additional protection to the
principles of the then existing Administration by creating a new corps
of judges of concurring political opinions. This bill, however, was not
passed into a law during that session of Congress, perhaps from an
apprehension that it would tend to increase the disquietudes which other
measures had before excited, and therefore operate unfavorably to the
approaching Presidential election. At the next session, after the result
of the late election was ascertained, the bill, after having undergone
some considerable alterations, was passed into the law now under
discussion. This law, it is now said, is inviolable and irrepealable. It
is said, the independence of the judge will be thereby immolated. Yes,
sir, this law is now considered as the sanctuary of the principles of
the last Administration, and the tenures of the judges as the horns of
inviolability within that sanctuary. He said, we are now called upon to
rally round the constitution as the ark of our political safety.
Gentlemen, discarding all generalizing expressions, and the spirit of
the instrument, tie down all construction to the strict letter of the
constitution. He said, it gave him great pleasure to meet gentlemen on
this ground, and the more so, because he had long been in the habit of
hearing very different language from the same gentlemen. He had long
been in the habit of hearing the same gentlemen speak of the expressions
of "the common defence and the general welfare," as the only valuable
part of the constitution; that they were sufficient to obliterate all
specifications and limitations of power. That the constitution was a
mere nose of wax, yielding to every impression it received. That every
"opening wedge" which was driven into it, was highly beneficial in
severing asunder the limitations and restrictions of power. That the
republicanism it secured, meant any thing or nothing. It gave him,
therefore, great pleasure at this time to obey the injunctions of
gentlemen in rallying round the constitution as the ark of our political
safety, and of interpreting it in by the plain and obvious meaning and
letter of the specified powers. But, he said, as if it was always the
unfortunate destiny of these gentlemen to be upon extremes, they have
now got round to the opposite extreme point of the political compass,
and even beyond it. For, he said, they not only tie down all
construction to the letter of the instrument, but they tell us that they
see, and call upon us also to see written therein, in large capital
characters, "the independence of judges;" which, to the extent they
carry the meaning of the term, is neither to be found in the letter or
spirit of that instrument, or in any other political establishment, he
believed, under the sun. Mr. G. said he rejoiced that this subject was
now to be discussed; he thought the crisis peculiarly auspicious for the
discussion. He said the European world, with which the United States
have the most relations, is now tranquillized. The tremendous scenes of
blood and revolution which had agitated that portion of the globe, had
at length subsided into profound peace; and had left mankind in silent
amazement, to retrospect the wonderful events which were passed; and he
hoped, with calm deliberation, to improve the lessons they had furnished
for the benefit of mankind in time to come. The interests and
sympathies, which the people of the United States felt in these events,
no longer turn their attention from their internal concerns; arguments
of the highest consideration for the safety of the constitution and the
liberty of the citizens, no longer receive the short reply, French
partisans! Jacobins! Disorganizers! And although the gentleman from
North Carolina sees, or thinks he sees, the destructive spirit mount in
the whirlwind and direct the storm, let him be consoled by the
information, "that all these, our actors, are mere spirits, and are
dissolved into thin air." Yes, sir, these magical delusions are now
vanished, and have left the American people and their Congress, in their
real persons, and original American characters, engaged in the
transaction of American concerns.

He said he would now proceed to examine whether the repeal of the
Judiciary law of the last session of Congress would in any respect
violate that salutary and practicable independence of the judges which
was secured to them by the constitution. He said the terms _independence
of Judges or of the Judiciary Department_ was not to be found in the
constitution. It was therefore a mere inference from some of the
specified powers. And he believed, in the meaning of gentlemen, and to
the extent they carry it, that the term is not to be found either in the
spirit, general character, or phraseology, of any article or section of
the constitution. He meant to give the constitution the most candid
interpretation in his power, according to the plain and obvious import
of the English language. He should discard, in his interpretation, the
terms "common defence and general welfare," which had been resorted to
by some gentlemen. He considered these words as containing no grant of
power whatever but merely the expression of the ends or objects to be
effected by the grants of specified powers. He therefore protested
against drawing any aid whatever from them in his construction of the
instrument. He said he had read through the whole constitution, to
enable him to form his opinion upon this question, for fear there might
be in some hidden corner of it some provision which might demonstrate
the unconstitutionality of the present bill; and if so, (although he
should lament such a provision,) he would instantly give up the bill.
But his researches had terminated in a different result. He said he
found, from the general character of the constitution, that the general
will was its basis, the general good its object, and the fundamental
principle for effecting this object was the responsibility of all public
agents, either mediately or immediately to the people. He said the
context of the constitution would demonstrate the two first points,
which he begged to read:

      "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, do ordain and establish this
      Constitution for the United States of America."

Here we find the constitution founded upon the will of the people, and
the object declared to be the good of the people. Through the whole body
of the constitution may be discerned the responsibility of all public
agents, either mediately or immediately, to the people. This
responsibility results, first, from the division of authority into
different departments; secondly, from a specification and limitation of
the authorities of all and each of the departments; thirdly, from
periodical appointments of the public agents. The first clause declares
there shall be a Congress, to whom the business of legislation is
confided. This Congress is to consist of a House of Representatives, to
be chosen by the people immediately, and responsible to them at the end
of every two years; and a Senate, to be chosen by the Legislatures of
the different States, who are chosen by the people--one-third of the
Senators to be chosen every two years, and responsible at the end of
every six years. The Executive power is vested in a President, who is
chosen by electors, who are chosen for the express purpose by the
people, and responsible at the end of every four years. The President
may be considered as immediately responsible to the people, although
chosen through the medium of electors; because it is found, in practice,
that the electors are constrained to avow the vote they intend to give
before they are chosen, and the people have generally made their
elections with a view to that object.

Thus, then, are formed two departments, their powers specified and
defined, the times for extending their powers fixed, and indeed a
complete organization for the execution of their respective powers,
without the intervention of any law for that purpose. A third
department, to wit, the Judiciary Department, is still wanting. Is that
formed by the constitution? How is that to be formed? It is not formed
by the constitution. It is only declared that there shall be such a
department; and it is directed to be formed by the other two
departments, who owe a responsibility to the people. Here there arises
an important difference of opinion between the different sides of this
House. It is contended on one side that the Judiciary Department is
formed by the constitution itself. It is contended on the other side,
that the constitution does no more than to declare that there shall be a
Judiciary Department, and directs that it shall be formed by the other
two departments, under certain modifications. Article third, section
first, the constitution has these words: "The Judicial power of the
United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior
courts as Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish." Here,
then, the power to ordain and establish inferior courts is given to
Congress in the most unqualified terms, and also to ordain and establish
"one Supreme Court." The only limitation upon the power of Congress in
this clause, consists in the number of supreme courts to be established;
the limitation is to the number of one, although that is an affirmative
and not a negative expression. The number of judges, the assignation of
duties, the fixing compensations, the fixing the times when, and places
where, the courts shall exercise their functions, &c., are left to the
entire discretion of Congress. The spirit, as well as the words of the
constitution, are completely satisfied, provided one Supreme Court be
established. Hence, when all these essential points in the organization
and formation of courts are intrusted to the unlimited discretion of
Congress, it cannot be said that the courts are formed by the
constitution. For further restraints, therefore, upon the discretion of
Congress, the remaining part of the same section must be consulted. Here
he begged leave to remark, that he had often felt a veneration for the
wisdom of the sages who formed this constitution; considering the
difficulties they had to encounter, resulting from the various local
prejudices and local interests of the different parts of the United
States, and the vast variety of opinions which the subject presented, it
was almost wonderful to conceive how they should have hit upon a system
so admirably calculated to protect and to promote the general interests,
when administered according to its original meaning and intention. He
could not go so far as to say it was perfect. He admitted, like other
human productions, it was stamped with the common fallibility of man.
That he wished, however, to see no radical changes in its principles. He
wished to hand it down to posterity with those amendments only which
experience should suggest, and which would grow out of the continually
varying state of the nation. He said it was not only remarkable for the
wisdom of its arrangements, but the correct and technical mode of
expression. The part of the section now to be examined, was an example
of the justice of both these remarks. The words are, "the judges both of
the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good
behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a
compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
office."

The first part of the sentence respects the relationship between the
Executive and the Judiciary Departments. It respects judges or officers
of the courts who are appointed by the President. The last part of the
sentence respects the relationship between the Legislative and Judiciary
Departments. It respects the creation of offices, the fixing the
compensation of the officers or judges, and their continuance in office.
These are the peculiar attributes of the Legislative Department.
Accordingly, the most correct and technical words are used in relation
to both these objects. The term "hold their offices during good
behavior," relates merely to the Executive Department. The term "hold,"
is the common technical word used to convey the idea of tenure. Tenure
requires two parties. The one granting, the other holding or receiving
the grant. Let the inquiry be made, of whom do the judges hold? The
constitution furnishes the answer, of the President. One of the most
obvious rules in the construction of instruments of writing is, that the
whole of it must be taken together, and not one particular part by
itself. The following words will be found in the second section of the
second article of the constitution: "And he (to wit, 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." In the third section of the same article, are these
words: "And shall (to wit, the President) commission all the officers of
the United States." These three sentences contain the relationship
between the Executive and Judiciary Departments, so far as respects the
objects of the present discussion.

To ascertain the real meaning and import of these sentences, they should
be read in connection with each other, excluding therefrom all
intermediate words not immediately bearing on the subject. In that case
the constitution would read thus: "He (to wit, the President) shall
nominate and appoint the Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other
officers of the United States, and shall commission all the officers of
the United States. The judges both of the supreme and inferior courts
shall hold their offices during good behavior." It may now be asked, if
this case of the judges of the supreme and inferior courts be not an
obvious exception out of the general Presidential discretion of
appointing and commissioning all officers of the United States during
pleasure? After the Government has been in operation above twelve years,
and the principle of commissioning all Executive officers during
pleasure, has been practised upon during the whole of the period by the
Executive, as well as the Legislative Department, the propriety of that
practice is for the first time now become questionable. It is said that
the right to commission during pleasure, is by implication. It is
readily admitted that there are no express words in the constitution to
that effect; but the inference from the words which are there, is almost
as strong as the words themselves, if they had been inserted. The
President is authorized, without limitation, to "commission all the
officers of the United States." The question arises, by what tenure? The
reply is, according to his pleasure or discretion. It was not difficult
to foresee, that if the President was fully empowered to commission as
he pleased, he would please to commission during his pleasure. The
Legislature has no more control over an officer who holds an Executive
commission during the pleasure of the President, than over a Judicial
officer holding his office during good behavior. The remedy given by the
constitution being the same in both cases, to wit, impeachment. Nor is
there any reason why the office of the one should be less subject to the
discretion of the Legislature, than the office of the other; and it
seems to be universally agreed, that although the Legislature cannot
deprive an Executive officer of his office in any other way than by
impeachment, during the continuance of such office, yet the office
itself is always subject to be abolished. The same reasoning will hold
with equal force respecting a judge and a Judicial office. The reason
why the Executive is proscribed from the removal of a judge, is to
secure to the judge a complete independence of the President, who is not
responsible for the discharge of Judicial duties; but the removal is
perfectly correct in the case of an Executive officer, because the
President is highly responsible for the due discharge of Executive
duties. The Legislature is not responsible for either, and of course
stands in the same constitutional relation to both. This appears obvious
from furnishing to the Legislature the same means of removing both, as
will appear by the fourth section of the second article, in the
following words: "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers
of the United States, shall be removed from office by impeachment for,
and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or
misdemeanors." He now begged to call the attention of the committee
particularly to the last clause of the sentence, which ascertains the
constitutional connection between the Legislative and Judicial
Departments, so far as respects the limitation of the Legislative, in
the exercise of the power committed to it, for the organization of the
Judicial Department. He should place particular emphasis on these words
of the constitution in the exposition he proposed to make. The words
are: "And shall at stated times receive for their services a
compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
office." The first part of this section having given to Congress the
power of creating courts, ascertaining the number of judges, &c., these
last words may be considered as containing explanations and limitations
of the general power of Congress, as was the foregoing part of this
sentence a limitation of the general Executive power. And accordingly
the most correct terms are used for limiting Legislative discretion, and
explaining its objects; according to the words of this sentence, the
judge is to receive a compensation for his services. To whom are these
services to be rendered? To the people, for the benefit of the people.
Who is to judge of the necessity or utility of these services? The
constitution has ordained, that Congress, or, in other words, the
Representatives of the people, shall be the tribunal. Suppose there
should be no services required, none for the judge to perform, and that
Congress should so think and determine: is the judge entitled to
compensation? He is not. The condition of service for the benefit of the
people, is the express consideration upon which the compensation
accrues. No service is rendered, the competent tribunal says, there is
none required, of course no compensation accrues. The judge is entitled
to receive none. On this point, an obvious and most important difference
of opinion exists between the two sides of the committee. On one side it
is contended, that the office is the vested property of the judge,
conferred on him by his appointment, and that his good behavior is the
consideration of his compensation; so long, therefore, as his good
behavior exists, so long his office must continue in consequence of his
good behavior, and that his compensation is his property in virtue of
his office, and therefore cannot be taken away by any authority
whatever, although there may be no service for him to perform. On the
other side, it is contended that the good behavior is not the
consideration upon which the compensation accrues, but services rendered
for the public good; and that if the office is to be considered as a
property, it is a property held in trust for the benefit of the people,
and must therefore be held subject to that condition, of which Congress
is the constitutional judge. Mr. G. said, considering the boundary line
between these conflicting opinions to be the boundary line between the
offices held for public utility, and offices held for personal favor, he
could not bestow too much attention upon this part of the discussion;
for if the construction gentlemen contend for should prevail, in vain
have the framers of the constitution, with so much jealous
circumspection, erected so many ramparts against the introduction of
some of these offices in the Government of the United States. A sinecure
office is an office held without the condition of service; often for
past services already compensated; often for present favor, without the
condition of any service. For the purpose of excluding from the Federal
Government all sinecure offices, the sages who formed the constitution
have through every part of it connected services and compensation, and
they ought never to be separated in construction. The sixth section of
the first article is in these words: "The Senators and Representatives
shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by
law," &c., and so far has this principle of the rendition of service
been carried, that the service of the Senate and Representatives is to
be rendered every day, and unless they do daily render service, they are
not entitled to their day's compensation. In the first section of the
second article of the constitution, are these words: "The President
shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation," &c. In
the forty-first section of the act under which the judges claim their
compensation, are these words: "That each of the circuit judges of the
United States, to be appointed by virtue of this act, shall be allowed
as a compensation for his services," &c. These expressions all
demonstrate the importance of coupling the service and compensation of
office. But the jealous caution of the framers of the constitution did
not stop at choosing the best affirmative expression for excluding this
doctrine of sinecure offices, they also applied negative restraints.

In the ninth section of the first article of the constitution, are these
words, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of
appropriations made by law." In the same section, "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 of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind
whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." If then services
rendered for the public benefit be the essential consideration, upon
which the compensation does accrue to the judges; if the Congress be the
proper tribunal for pronouncing upon the necessity or utility of such
service, and if they decide that no such service is necessary or useful;
the judge sustains no injury in not receiving the compensation, because
he does not comply with the condition on his part; nor does he sustain a
hardship thereby, because it must be presumed that he understood the
second conditions attached to his office at the time of his acceptance.
It has been admitted by all gentlemen, that Congress is the
constitutional tribunal for deciding respecting the services to be
performed. They admit that Congress may modify the courts, diminish or
add to their duties, alter the terms of their sessions, or make any
other arrangements respecting them which do not go to take away or
diminish their compensations. It is to be observed that there is not one
of these powers specified in the constitution; they are therefore
necessary inferences from the paramount power "to ordain and establish,"
and the power of repeal, or to take away all the services to be
performed, is as necessary an inference as either of the others, and has
uniformly resulted from every other specified power in the constitution.
From this part of the sentence, therefore, it is deducible, that the
only restraint upon the general power given to Congress in the first
part of the section to ordain and establish courts, is, that the
compensations of the judges should not be lessened during their
continuance in office; not during their good behavior. And in this part
of the sentence the correct phraseology of the constitution is worthy of
observation. In speaking of the Executive attribute, to wit, the
appointing and commissioning officers, the term _good behavior_ is used.
In speaking of the Legislative attribute, to wit, the creation of the
offices and fixing compensations, the term _during their continuance in
office_ is used. The reason for this variation of expression is obvious.
It was known that the office might be discontinued, and the judge
continue to behave well; the limitation was therefore applied to the
office, and not the good behavior, because if the office should be
discontinued, which is clearly implied in this expression, it was not
the intention of the constitution that the compensation should be
received, no service in that event being to be rendered. From this
interpretation of the constitution, all of the departments are preserved
in the due exercise of their respective functions for the general good,
without any of the mischievous and absurd consequences resulting from
the opposite construction. It is admitted that the first part of this
section expressly vests Congress with the general power to ordain and
establish courts; and, if there had been no other restriction, the
consequent power to unordain, or abolish. The restriction relied upon is
not a restriction in express words: there are no words in the
constitution prohibiting Congress from repealing a law for organizing
courts; the restraint contended for, therefore, is by implication, and
that implication, to say the least, not expressly connected with any
Legislative attribute. Is it right, is it a correct interpretation, that
when a power is given in express words for the most important purposes,
that it should be restrained or prohibited by implication? Can so much
inattention and folly be attributed to the framers of the constitution,
as would result from the supposition that if it was their intention that
a law growing out of one of the specified powers, in contradistinction
to all others, should be irrepealable when once passed, that so
extraordinary a principle would be left to mere implication? Such a
supposition would be the highest injustice to the superior intelligence
and patriotism of those gentlemen, manifested in every other part of the
instrument. No, sir, they would have made notes of admiration: they
would have used every mark, adopted every caution, to have arrested and
fixed the attention of the Legislature to so extraordinary a principle.

They would have said, Legislators! Be circumspect! Be cautious! Be calm!
Be deliberate! Be wise! Be wise not only for the present, but be wise
for posterity! You are now about to tread upon holy ground. The law you
are now about to pass, is irrepealable! Irrevokable! We are so enamored
with the salutary and practical independence of the English Judiciary
system, that in infusing its principle into our constitution, we have
stamped it with the proverbial folly of the Medes and Persians! If this
principle had been introduced into the constitution in express words, it
would have formed an unfortunate contrast to all other parts of the
instrument; yet gentlemen make no difficulty in introducing that
principle by construction, which would have appeared so stupid and
absurd if written in express words in the body of the instrument. But
there is no such language in the constitution. Let us see what is the
language of that instrument, "The Judicial power of the United States
shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Here, then,
instead of cautioning the Legislature that a law for the organization of
courts, when passed, can never be repealed, it contains an invitation to
a revision from time to time. It contains an intimation, that the
subject is new and difficult, and an injunction to ordain and establish
your courts from time to time, according to the results, which an
experience of the system alone could suggest. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. HEMPHILL) observed that the character of
irrepealability was not exclusively attached to this law, and attempted
to furnish instances of other laws of the same character. He instanced a
law for the admission of a new State into the Union.

The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. DAVIS) had given a proper reply to that
remark; the strongest instance the gentleman gave, was of a law
executed. After the new State is remitted into the Union, in virtue of a
law for that purpose, the object of the law is answered. The State
admitted has no stipulated duties to perform on its part, no services to
render; in the case before the committee the law is in a state of
execution, and the judges have services to render on their part which
the competent tribunals may determine to be neither useful nor
necessary. A law for the appropriation of money to a given object, may
be adduced is an instance; the money is applied; its object is answered;
the law may be said to be irrepealable, or, in other words, the repeal
would produce no effect. That is not the case of the law in question.
Mr. G. said he had no doubt but that the framers of the constitution had
particular reference to the British act of Parliament of William III.
for the establishment of the independence of the judges in that country,
in framing the section for the establishment of the Judicial Department
in the United States; and it is not a little remarkable, that whilst
gentlemen in one breath speak of the independence of the English judges,
as the boast and glory of that nation, in the next breath they tell us
that by the repeal of the present act, the independence of the judges
here would be immolated. Let this subject be examined. In the third
chapter of the first book of Blackstone's Commentaries, the independence
of the English Judiciary is fully explained. He begged to read the
exposition of that commentator on that subject.

      "And, in order to maintain both the dignity and
      independence of the judges of the superior courts, it is
      enacted by the statute, 13 W. III. c. 2, that their
      commissions shall be made (not, as formerly, _durante bene
      placito_, but) _quam diu bene se gesserint_, and their
      salaries ascertained and established; but that it may be
      lawful to remove them on the address of both Houses of
      Parliament. And now, by the noble improvements of that law
      in the statute of Geo. III. c. 23, enacted at the earnest
      recommendation of the King himself, from the Throne, the
      judges are continued in their offices during their good
      behavior, notwithstanding any demise of the Crown, (which
      was formerly held immediately to vacate their seats,) and
      their full salaries are absolutely secured to them during
      the continuance of their commissions. His Majesty having
      been pleased to declare, that "he looked upon the
      independence and uprightness of the judges, as essential to
      the impartial administration of justice; as one of the best
      securities of the rights and liberties of his subjects; and
      as the most conducive to the honor of the Crown.""

Now, sir, under the doctrine contended for by the repeal of this law,
let us see whether the judges of the United States are not more
independent than the judges of England. In the first place, Congress
have the power of originating, abolishing, modifying, &c., the courts
here. The Parliament in England have the same power there. Congress
cannot remove a judicial officer from his office so long as the office
itself is deemed useful, except by impeachment, two-thirds of the Senate
being necessary to a conviction. In England, judges can be removed from
their offices, although the offices may be deemed useful, by an address
of the majority of the two Houses of Parliament. Here then is one
essential advantage in favor of the independence of the judges of the
United States. Congress cannot diminish the compensation of the judges
here during their continuance in office. In England, the Parliament may
diminish the compensation of the judges, at their discretion, during
their continuance in office. Here, then, is another obvious advantage in
favor of the independence of the judges of the United States; whence is
it, then, that we hear of the independence of the English judiciary, as
being the boast and glory of that country, and with justice, too, and at
the same time hear the cry of the immolation of the independence of the
judges of the United States, when, under the interpretation of the
constitution by the favorers of the repeal, the judges here are more
independent than the English judges? It can have no other object than to
excite a popular clamor, which, if excited at all, can have only a
momentary effect, and will be dissipated as soon as the subject shall be
thoroughly examined and understood. But it appeared to him, that if
gentlemen really do value the independence of the judges, they have
taken an unfortunate ground in the interpretation of the constitution.
Under their construction, the judges may be placed not only in a
dependent, but a ludicrous point of view.

Gentlemen admit that Congress may constitutionally increase or diminish
the duties of judges; give or take away jurisdiction; fix the times of
holding courts, &c., saving therefrom the salaries of the judges. Under
this admission, Congress may postpone the sessions of the courts for
eight or ten years, and establish others, to whom they could transfer
all the powers of the existing courts. In this case, the judges would be
held up to the people as pensioners, receiving their money and rendering
no service in return; or Congress might convert them into mere courts
of piepoudre, assigning them the most paltry duties to perform, and keep
them continually in session, in inconvenient places; whilst new courts
could be erected to perform all the essential business of the nation.
This would be taking down the high pretensions assigned to the judges by
the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. HENDERSON,) of being formed into
a permanent corps for the purpose of protecting the people against their
worst enemies, themselves; and degrading them into pitiful courts of
piepoudre, rendering little service and receiving large compensations.
And this would be the case, if party purposes were the object, and not
the general good. According to his construction, these absurd results
could not take place, unless by a virtual breach of the constitution.
Because, he contended, that service and compensation were correlative
terms; and that there ought always to be a due apportionment of service
to compensation. This he considered as the plain and sound
interpretation of the constitution, and the moment it is departed from,
infinite absurdities ensue. He intended to have taken another view of
this subject, as it respects the relative influence of the law of the
last session, and the proposed repeal upon this question; but the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) has put this subject in so much
stronger point of view than he could do, that he would refer to his
remarks thereupon, observing only that he had no doubt but that the law
of last session, now proposed to be repealed, was, in every respect, as
much opposed to the doctrine of gentlemen, as the contemplated repeal
could be. The sections of the law particularly alluded to, are the
twenty-fourth, in these words, "and be it further enacted, that the
district courts of the United States, in and for the districts of
Tennessee and Kentucky, shall be and are hereby abolished," and the
twenty-seventh, in these words, "and be it further enacted, that the
circuit courts of the United States, heretofore established, shall cease
and be abolished."

Mr. G. concluded by observing that, upon the whole view of the subject,
feeling the firmest conviction that there is no constitutional
impediment in the way of repealing the act in question, upon the most
fair and candid interpretation of the constitution:--believing that
principles advanced in opposition, go directly to the destruction of the
fundamental principle of the constitution, the responsibility of all
public agents to the people--that they go to the establishment of a
permanent corporation of individuals invested with ultimate censorial
and controlling power over all the departments of the Government, over
legislation, execution, and decision, and irresponsible to the people;
believing that these principles are in direct hostility to the great
principle of Representative Government; believing that the courts
formerly established, were fully competent to the business they had to
perform, and that the present courts are useless, unnecessary, and
expensive; believing that the Supreme Court has heretofore discharged
all the duties assigned to it in less than one month in the year, and
that its duties could be performed in half that time; considering the
compensations of the judges to be among the highest given to any of the
highest officers of the United States for the services of the whole
year; considering the compensations of all the judges greatly exceeding
the services assigned them, as well as considering all the circumstances
attending the substitution of the new system for the old one, by
increasing the number of judges, and compensations, and lessening their
duties by the distribution of the business into a great number of hands,
&c., while acting under these impressions, he should vote against the
motion now made for striking out the first section of the repealing
bill.


FRIDAY, February 19.

_Judiciary System._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to repeal certain acts
respecting the organization of the Courts of the United States, and for
other purposes."

Mr. BAYARD.--Mr. Chairman, I must be allowed to express my surprise at
the course pursued by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr.
GILES,) in the remarks which he has made on the subject before us. I had
expected that he would have adopted a different line of conduct. I had
expected it as well from that sentiment of magnanimity which ought to
have been inspired by a sense of the high ground he holds on the floor
of this House, as from the professions of a desire to conciliate, which
he has so repeatedly made during the session. We have been invited to
bury the hatchet, and brighten the chain of peace. We were disposed to
meet on middle ground. We had assurances from the gentleman that he
would abstain from reflections on the past, and his only wish was that
we might unite in future in promoting the welfare of our common country.
We confided in the gentleman's sincerity, and cherished the hope that,
if the divisions of party were not banished from the House, its spirit
would be less intemperate. Such were our impressions, when the mask was
suddenly thrown aside, and we saw the torch of discord lighted and
blazing before our eyes. Every effort has been made to revive the
animosities of the House, and inflame the passions of the nation. I am
at no loss to perceive why this course has been pursued. The gentleman
has been unwilling to rely upon the strength of his subject, and has
therefore determined to make the measure a party question. He has
probably secured success, but would it not have been more honorable and
more commendable to have left the decision of a great constitutional
question to the understanding, and not to the prejudices of the House?
It was my ardent wish to discuss the subject with calmness and
deliberation, and I did intend to avoid every topic which could awaken
the sensibility of party. This was my temper and design when I took my
seat yesterday. It is a course at present we are no longer at liberty to
pursue. The gentleman has wandered far, very far, from the points of the
debate, and has extended his animadversions to all the prominent
measures of the former administrations. In following him through his
preliminary observations, I necessarily lose sight of the bill upon your
table.

The gentleman commenced his strictures with the philosophic observation,
that it was the fate of mankind to hold different opinions as to the
form of government which was preferable. That some were attached to the
monarchal, while others thought the republican more eligible. This, as
an abstract remark, is certainly true, and could have furnished no
ground of offence, if it had not evidently appeared that an allusion was
designed to be made to the parties in this country. Does the gentleman
suppose that we have a less lively recollection than himself of the oath
which we have taken to support the constitution; that we are less
sensible of the spirit of our Government, or less devoted to the wishes
of our constituents? Whatever impression it might be the intention of
the gentleman to make, he does not believe that there exists in this
country an anti-republican party. He will not venture to assert such an
opinion on the floor of this House. That there may be a few individuals
having a preference for monarchy is not improbable; but will the
gentleman from Virginia, or any other gentleman, affirm, in his place,
that there is a party in the country who wish to establish a monarchy?
Insinuations of this sort belong not to the Legislature of the Union.
Their place is an election ground or an alehouse. Within these walls
they are lost; abroad, they have an effect, and I fear are still capable
of abusing the popular credulity.

We were next told of the parties which have existed, divided by the
opposite views of promoting the Executive power and guarding the rights
of the people. The gentleman did not tell us in plain language, but he
wished it to be understood, that he and his friends were the guardians
of the people's rights, and that we were the advocates of Executive
power.

I know that this is the distinction of party which some gentlemen have
been anxious to establish; but this is not the ground on which we
divide. I am satisfied with the constitutional powers of the Executive,
and never wished nor attempted to increase them; and I do not believe
that gentlemen on the other side of the House ever had a serious
apprehension of danger from an increase of Executive authority. No, sir,
our views as to the powers which do and ought to belong to the General
and State Governments, are the true sources of our divisions. I
co-operate with the party to which I am attached, because I believe
their true object and end, is an honest and efficient support of the
General Government, in the exercise of the legitimate powers of the
constitution.

I pray to God I may be mistaken in the opinion I entertain as to the
designs of gentlemen to whom I am opposed. Those designs I believe
hostile to the powers of this Government. State pride extinguishes a
national sentiment. Whatever is taken from this Government is given to
the States.

The ruins of this Government aggrandize the States. There are States
which are too proud to be controlled; whose sense of greatness and
resource renders them indifferent to our protection, and induces a
belief, that if no General Government existed, their influence would be
more extensive, and their importance more conspicuous. There are
gentlemen who make no secret of an extreme point of depression, to which
the Government is to be sunk. To that point we are rapidly progressing.
But I would beg gentlemen to remember, that human affairs are not to be
arrested in their course, at artificial points. The impulse now given
may be accelerated by causes at present out of view. And when those who
now design well, wish to stop, they may find their powers unable to
resist the torrent. It is not true that we ever wished to give a
dangerous strength to Executive power. While the Government was in our
hands, it was our duty to maintain its constitutional balance, by
preserving the energies of each branch. There never was an attempt to
vary the relation of its powers. The struggle was to maintain the
constitutional powers of the Executive. The wild principles of French
liberty were scattered through the country. We had our Jacobins and
disorganizers. They saw no difference between a King and a President,
and as the people of France had put down their King, they thought the
people of America ought to put down their President. They who considered
the constitution as securing all the principles of rational and
practical liberty, who were unwilling to embark upon the tempestuous sea
of revolution, in pursuit of visionary schemes, were denounced as
monarchists. A line was drawn between the Government and the people, and
the friends of the Government were marked as the enemies of the people.
I hope, however, that the Government and the people are now the same;
and I pray to God that what has been frequently remarked may not in this
case be discovered to be true, that they who have the name of people the
most often in their mouths, have their true interests the most seldom at
their hearts.

The honorable gentleman from Virginia wandered to the very confines of
the Federal Administration, in search of materials the most inflammable
and most capable of kindling the passions of his party.

He represents the Government as seizing the first moment which presented
itself to create a dependent moneyed interest, ever devoted to its
views. What are we to understand by this remark of the gentleman? Does
he mean to say that Congress did wrong in funding the public debt? Does
he mean to say that the price of our liberty and independence ought not
to have been paid? Is he bold enough to denounce this measure as one of
the Federal victims marked for destruction? Is it the design to tell us
that its day has not yet come, but is approaching; and that the funding
system is to add to the pile of Federal ruins? Do I hear the gentleman
say we will reduce the army to a shadow; we will give the navy to the
worms; the mint, which presented the people with the emblems of their
liberty, and of their sovereignty, we will abolish; the revenue shall
depend upon the winds and waves; the judges shall be made our creatures,
and the great work shall be crowned and consecrated by relieving the
country from an odious and oppressive public debt? These steps, I
presume, are to be taken in progression. The gentleman will pause at
each, and feel the public pulse. As the fever increases he will proceed,
and the moment of delirium will be seized to finish the great work of
destruction.

The assumption of the State debts has been made an article of distinct
crimination. It has been ascribed to the worst motives--to a design of
increasing a dependent moneyed interest. Is it not well known that those
debts were part of the price of our Revolution? That they rose in the
exigency of our affairs, from the efforts of the particular States, at
times when the Federal arm could not be extended to their relief? Each
State was entitled to the protection of the Union, the defence was a
common burden, and every State had a right to expect that the expenses
attending its individual exertions in the general cause, would be
reimbursed from the public purse. I shall be permitted further to add,
that the United States, having absorbed the sources of State revenue,
except direct taxation, which was required for the support of the State
governments, the assumption of these debts was necessary to save some of
the States from bankruptcy.

The internal taxes are made one of the crimes of the Federal
Administration. They were imposed, says the gentleman, to create a host
of dependents on Executive favor. This supposes the past administrations
to have been not only very wicked, but very weak. They laid taxes in
order to strengthen their influence. Who is so ignorant as not to know,
that the imposition of a tax would create a hundred enemies for one
friend? The name of excise was odious; the details of collection were
unavoidably expensive, and it was to operate upon a part of the
community least disposed to support public burdens, and most ready to
complain of their weight. A little experience will give the gentleman a
new idea of the patronage of this Government. He will find it not that
dangerous weapon in the hands of the administration which he has
heretofore supposed it; he will probably discover that the poison is
accompanied by its antidote, and that an appointment of the Government,
while it gives to the administration one lazy friend, will raise up
against it ten active enemies. No! The motive ascribed for the
imposition of the internal taxes is as unfounded as it is uncharitable.
The Federal Administration, in creating burdens to support the credit of
the nation, and to supply the means of its protection, knew that they
risked the favor of those upon whom their power depended. They were
willing to be the victims when the public good required.

The duties on imports and tonnage furnished a precarious revenue--a
revenue at all times exposed to deficiency, from causes beyond our
reach. The internal taxes offered a fund less liable to be impaired by
accident--a fund which did not rob the mouth of labor, but was derived
from the gratification of luxury. These taxes are an equitable
distribution of the public burdens. Through this medium the Western
country is enabled to contribute something to the expenses of a
Government which has expended and daily expends such large sums for its
defence. When these taxes were laid they were indispensable. With the
aid of them it has been difficult to prevent an increase of the public
debt. And notwithstanding the fairy prospects which now dazzle our eyes,
I undertake to say, if you abolish them this session, you will be
obliged to restore them or supply their place by a direct tax before the
end of two years. Will the gentleman say, that the direct tax was laid
in order to enlarge the bounds of patronage? Will he deny that this was
a measure to which we had been urged for years by our adversaries,
because they foresaw in it the ruin of Federal power? My word for it, no
administration will ever be strengthened by a patronage united with
taxes which the people are sensible of paying.

We were next told, that to get an army an Indian war was necessary. The
remark was extremely bald, as the honorable gentleman did not allege a
single reason for the position. He did not undertake to state that it
was a wanton war, or provoked by the Government. He did not even venture
to deny, that it was a war of defence, and entered into in order to
protect our brethren on the frontiers from the bloody scalping-knife and
murderous tomahawk of the savage. What ought the government to have
done? Ought they to have estimated the value of the blood which probably
would be shed, and the amount of the devastation likely to be committed
before they determined on resistance? They raised an army, and after
great expense and various fortune, they have secured the peace and
safety of the frontiers. But why was the army mentioned on this
occasion, unless to fore-warn us of the fate which awaits them, and to
tell us that their days are numbered? I cannot suppose that the
gentleman mentioned this little army, distributed on a line of three
thousand miles, for the purpose of giving alarm to three hundred
thousand free and brave yeomanry, ever ready to defend the liberties of
the country.

The honorable gentleman proceeded to inform the committee, that the
Government, availing itself of the depredations of the Algerines,
created a navy. Did the gentleman mean to insinuate, that this war was
invited by the United States? Has he any documents or proof to render
the suspicion colorable? No, sir, he has none. He well knows that the
Algerine aggressions were extremely embarrassing to the Government. When
they commenced, we had no marine force to oppose to them. We had no
harbors or places of shelter in the Mediterranean. A war with these
pirates could be attended with neither honor nor profit. It might cost a
great deal of blood, and in the end it might be feared that a contest so
far from home, subject to numberless hazards and difficulties, could not
be maintained. What would gentlemen have had the Government to do? I
know there are those who are ready to answer: abandon the Mediterranean
trade. But would this have done? The corsairs threatened to pass the
Straits, and were expected in the Atlantic. Nay, sir, it was thought
that our very coasts would not have been secure.

Will gentlemen go further, and say that the United States ought to
relinquish their commerce. It has been said that we ought to be
cultivators of the earth, and make the nations of Europe our carriers.
This is not an occasion to examine the solidity of this opinion; but I
will only ask, admitting the administration were disposed to turn the
pursuits of the people of this country from the ocean to the land,
whether there is a power in the Government, or whether there would be if
we were as strong as the Government of Turkey, or even of France, to
accomplish the object? With a sea-coast of seventeen hundred miles, with
innumerable harbors and inlets, with a people enterprising beyond
example, is it possible to say, you will have no ships or sailors, nor
merchants? The people of this country will never consent to give up
their navigation, and every administration will find themselves
constrained to provide means to protect their commerce.

In respect to the Algerines, the late administration were singularly
unfortunate. They were obliged to fight or pay them. The true policy was
to hold a purse in one hand and a sword in the other. This was the
policy of the Government. Every commercial nation in Europe was
tributary to those petty barbarians. It was not esteemed disgraceful. It
was an affair of calculation, and the administration made the best
bargain in their power. They have heretofore been scandalized for paying
tribute to a pirate, and now they are criminated for preparing a few
frigates to protect our citizens from slavery and chains! Sir, I believe
on this and many other occasions, if the finger of Heaven had pointed
out a course, and the Government had pursued it, yet that they would not
have escaped the censure and reproaches of their enemies.

We were told that the disturbances in Europe were made a pretext for
augmenting the army and navy. I will not, Mr. Chairman, at present go
into a detailed view of the events which compelled the Government to put
on the armor of defence, and to resist by force the French aggressions.
All the world know the efforts which were made to accomplish an amicable
adjustment of differences with that power. It is enough to state, that
ambassadors of peace were twice repelled from the shores of France with
ignominy and contempt. It is enough to say, that it was not till after
we had drunk the cup of humiliation to the dregs, that the national
spirit was roused to a manly resolution, to depend only on their God and
their own courage for protection. What, sir, did it grieve the gentleman
that we did not crouch under the rod of the Mighty Nation, and, like the
petty powers of Europe, tamely surrender our independence? Would he have
had the people of the United States relinquish without a struggle those
liberties which had cost so much blood and treasure? We had not, sir,
recourse to arms, till the mouths of our rivers were choked with French
corsairs; till our shores, and every harbor, were insulted and violated;
till half our commercial capital had been seized, and no safety existed
for the remainder but the protection of force. At this moment a noble
enthusiasm electrized the country; the national pulse beat high, and we
were prepared to submit to every sacrifice, determined only that our
independence should be the last. At that time an American was a proud
name in Europe; but I fear, much I fear, that in the course we are now
likely to pursue, the time will soon arrive when our citizens abroad
will be ashamed to acknowledge their country.

The measures of 1798 grew out of the public feelings; they were loudly
demanded by the public voice. It was the people who drove the Government
to arms, and not (as the gentleman expressed it) the Government which
pushed the people to the X, Y, Z of the political designs before they
understood the A, B, C of their political principles.

But what, sir, did the gentleman mean by his X, Y, Z? I must look for
something very significant--something more than a quaintness of
expression, or a play upon words--in what falls from a gentleman of his
learning and ability. Did he mean that the dispatches which contained
those letters were impostures, designed to deceive and mislead the
people of America--intended to rouse a false spirit not justified by
events? Though the gentleman had no respect for some of the characters
of that embassy; though he felt no respect for the Chief Justice, or the
gentleman appointed from South Carolina--two characters as pure, as
honorable, as exalted, as any the country can boast of--yet I should
have expected that he would have felt some tenderness for Mr. Gerry, in
whom his party had since given proofs of undiminished confidence. Does
the gentleman believe that Mr. Gerry would have joined in the deception,
and assisted in fabricating a tale which was to blind his countrymen,
and to enable the Government to destroy their liberties? Sir, I will
not avail myself of the equivocations or confessions of Talleyrand
himself; I say these gentlemen will not dare publicly to deny what is
attested by the hand and seal of Mr. Gerry.

The truth of these despatches admitted, what was your Government to do?
Give us, say the Directory, 1,200,000 livres for our own purse, and
purchase $15,000,000 of Dutch debt, (which was worth nothing,) and we
will receive your Ministers, and negotiate for peace.

It was only left to the Government to choose between an unconditional
surrender of the honor and independence of the country, or a manly
resistance. Can you blame, sir, the Administration for a line of conduct
which has reflected on the nation so much honor, and to which, under
God, it owes its present prosperity?

These are the events of the General Government which the gentleman has
reviewed in succession, and endeavored to render odious or suspicious.
For all this I could have forgiven him, but there is one thing for which
I will not, I cannot forgive him--I mean this attempt to disturb the
ashes of the dead; to disturb the ashes of the great and good
WASHINGTON! Sir, I might degrade by attempting to eulogize this
illustrious character. The work is infinitely beyond my powers. I will
only say, that as long as exalted talents and virtues confer honor among
men, the name of WASHINGTON will be held in veneration.

After, Mr. Chairman, the honorable member had exhausted one quiver of
arrows against the late Executive, he opened another, equally poisoned,
against the Judiciary. He has told us, sir, that when the power of the
Government was rapidly passing from Federal hands--after we had heard
the thundering voice of the people which dismissed us from their
service--we erected a Judiciary, which we expected would afford us the
shelter of an inviolable sanctuary. The gentleman is deceived. We knew
better, sir, the characters who were to succeed us, and we knew that
nothing was sacred in the eyes of infidels. No, sir, I never had a
thought that any thing belonging to the Federal Government was holy in
the eyes of those gentlemen. I could never, therefore, imagine that a
sanctuary could be built up which would not be violated. I believe these
gentlemen regard public opinion, because their power depends upon it;
but I believe they respect no existing establishment of the Government;
and if public opinion could be brought to support them, I have no doubt
they would annihilate the whole. I shall at present only say further, on
this head, that we thought the reorganization of the Judicial system a
useful measure, and we consider it as a duty to employ the remnant of
our power to the best advantage of our country.

The honorable gentleman expressed his joy that the constitution had at
last become sacred in our eyes: that we formerly held that it meant
every thing or nothing. I believe, sir, that the constitution formerly
appeared different in our eyes from what it appears in the eyes of the
dominant party. We formerly saw in it the principles of a fair and
goodly creation. We looked upon it as a source of peace, of safety, of
honor, and of prosperity to the country. But now the view is changed; it
is the instrument of wild and dark destruction; it is a weapon which is
to prostrate every establishment to which the nation owes the unexampled
blessings which it enjoys.

The present state of the country is an unanswerable commentary upon our
construction of the constitution. It is true that we made it mean much;
and hope, sir, we shall not be taught by the present Administration that
it can mean even worse than nothing.

The gentleman has not confined his animadversions to the individual
establishment, but has gone so far as to make the judges the subject of
personal invective. They have been charged with having transgressed the
bounds of Judicial duty, and become the apostles of a political sect. We
have heard of their travelling about the country for little other
purpose than to preach the Federal doctrines to the people.

Sir, I think a judge should never be a partisan. No man would be more
ready to condemn a judge who carried his political prejudices or
antipathies on the bench. But I have still to learn that such a charge
can be sustained against the judges of the United States.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and they have taken
pains, in their charges to grand juries, to unfold and explain its
principles. Upon similar occasions they have enumerated the laws which
compose our criminal code, and when some of those laws have been
denounced by the enemies of the Administration as unconstitutional, the
judges may have felt themselves called upon to express their judgments
upon that point, and the reasons of their opinions.

So far, but no farther, I believe, the judges have gone. In going thus
far, they have done nothing more than faithfully discharge their duty.

But if, sir, they have offended against the constitution or laws of the
country, why are they not impeached? The gentleman now holds the sword
of justice. The judges are not a privileged order; they have no shelter
but their innocence. But, in any view, are the sins of the former judges
to be fastened upon the new Judicial system? Would you annihilate a
system because some men under part of it had acted wrong? The
constitution has pointed out a mode of punishing and removing the men,
and does not leave this miserable pretext for the wanton exercise of
powers which is now contemplated.

The honorable member has thought himself justified in making a charge of
a serious and frightful nature against the judges. They have been
represented going about searching out victims of the Sedition law. But
no fact has been stated; no proof has been adduced, and the gentleman
must excuse me for refusing my belief to the charge, till it is
sustained by stronger and better ground than assertion.

If, however, Mr. Chairman, the eyes of the gentlemen are delighted with
victims, if objects of misery are grateful to his feelings, let me turn
his view from the walks of the judges to the track of the present
Executive. It is in this path we see the real victims of stern,
uncharitable, unrelenting power. It is here, sir, we see the soldier who
fought the battles of the Revolution, who spilt his blood and wasted his
strength to establish the independence of his country, deprived of the
reward of his services, and left to pine in penury and wretchedness. It
is along this path that you may see helpless children crying for bread,
and gray hairs sinking in sorrow to the grave! It is here that no
innocence, no merit, no truth, no services, can save the unhappy sectary
who does not believe in the creed of those in power. I have been forced
upon this subject, and before I leave it, allow me to remark, that
without inquiring into the right of the President to make vacancies in
office during the recess of the Senate, but admitting the power to
exist, yet that it never was given by the constitution to enable the
Chief Magistrate to punish the insults, to revenge the wrongs, or to
indulge the antipathies of the man. If the discretion exists, I have no
hesitation in saying that it is abused when exercised from any other
motives than the public good. And when I see the will of a President
precipitating from office men of probity, knowledge, and talents,
against whom the community has no complaint, I consider it as a wanton
and dangerous abuse of power. And when I see men who have been the
victims of this abuse of power, I view them as the proper objects of
national sympathy and commiseration.

Among the causes of impeachment against the judges, is their attempt to
force the sovereignties of the States to bow before them. We have heard
them called an ambitious body politic; and the fact I allude to has been
considered as full proof of the inordinate ambition of the body.

Allow me to say, sir, the gentleman knows too much not to know that the
judges are not a body politic. He supposed, perhaps, there was an odium
attached to the appellation, which it might serve his purposes to
connect with the judges. But, sir, how do you derive any evidence of the
ambition of the judges from their decision that the States under our
Federal compact were compellable to do justice? Can it be shown, or even
said, that the judgment of the court was a false construction of the
constitution? The policy of later times on this point has altered the
constitution, and, in my opinion, has obliterated its fairest features.
I am taught by my principles that no power ought to be superior to
justice. It is not that I wish to see the States humbled in dust and
ashes; it is not that I wish to see the pride of any man flattered by
their degradation; but it is that I wish to see the great and the small,
the sovereign and the subject, bow at the altar of justice, and submit
to those obligations from which the Deity himself is not exempt. What
was the effect of this provision in the constitution? It prevented the
States being the judges in their own cause, and deprived them of the
power of denying justice. Is there a principle of ethics more clear than
that a man ought not to be a judge in his own cause, and is not the
principle equally strong when applied not to one man but to a collective
body? It was the happiness of our situation which enabled us to force
the greatest State to submit to the yoke of justice, and it would have
been the glory of the country in the remotest times, if the principle in
the constitution had been maintained. What had the States to dread?
Could they fear injustice when opposed to a feeble individual? Has a
great man reason to fear from a poor one? And could a potent State be
alarmed by the unfounded claim of a single person? For my part I have
always thought that an independent tribunal ought to be provided to
judge on the claims against this Government. The power ought not to be
in our own hands. We are not impartial, and are therefore liable,
without our knowledge, to do wrong. I never could see why the whole
community should not be bound by as strong an obligation to do justice
to an individual, as one man is bound to do it to another.

In England the subject has a better chance for justice against the
Sovereign than in this country a citizen has against a State. The Crown
is never its own arbiter, and they who sit in judgment have no interest
in the event of their decision.

The judges, sir, have been criminated for their conduct in relation to
the Sedition act, and have been charged with searching for victims who
were sacrificed under it. The charge is easily made, but has the
gentleman the means of supporting it? It was the evident design of the
gentleman to attach the odium of the Sedition law to the Judiciary; on
this score the Judges are surely innocent. They did not pass the act;
the Legislature made the law, and they were obliged by their oaths to
execute it. The judges decided the law to be constitutional, and I am
not now going to agitate the question. I did hope, when the law passed,
that its effect would be useful. It did not touch the freedom of speech,
and was designed only to restrain the enormous abuses of the press. It
went no farther than to punish malicious falsehoods, published with the
wicked intention of destroying the Government. No innocent man ever did
or could have suffered under the law. No punishment could be inflicted
till a jury was satisfied that a publication was false, and that the
party charged, knowing it to be false, had published it with an evil
design.

The misconduct of the judges, however, on this subject, has been
considered by the gentleman the more aggravated, by an attempt to extend
the principles of the Sedition act, by an adoption of those of the
common law. Connected with this subject, such an attempt was never made
by the judges. They have held, generally, that the Constitution of the
United States was predicated upon an existing common law. Of the
soundness of that opinion, I never had a doubt. I should scarcely go too
far, were I to say, that, stripped of the common law, there would be
neither constitution nor Government. The constitution is unintelligible
without reference to the common law. And were we to go into our courts
of justice with the mere statutes of the United States, not a step could
be taken, not even a contempt could be punished. Those statutes
prescribe no forms of pleadings; they contain no principles of evidence;
they furnish no rule of property. If the common law does not exist in
most cases, there is no law but the will of the judge.

I have never contended that the whole of the common law attached to the
constitution, but only such parts as were consonant to the nature and
spirit of our Government. We have nothing to do with the law of the
Ecclesiastical Establishment, nor with any principle of monarchical
tendency. What belongs to us, and what is unsuitable, is a question for
the sound discretion of the judges. The principle is analogous to one
which is found in the writings of all jurists and commentators. When a
colony is planted, it is established subject to such parts of the law of
the mother country as are applicable to its situation. When our
forefathers colonized the wilderness of America, they brought with them
the common law of England. They claimed it as their birthright, and they
left it as the most valuable inheritance to their children. Let me say,
that this same common law, now so much despised and vilified, is the
cradle of the rights and liberties which we now enjoy. It is to the
common law we owe our distinction from the colonists of France, of
Portugal, and of Spain. How long is it since we have discovered the
malignant qualities which are now ascribed to this law? Is there a State
in the Union which has not adopted it, and in which it is not in force?
Why is it refused to the Federal Constitution? Upon the same principle
that every power is denied which tends to invigorate the Government.
Without this law the constitution becomes, what perhaps many gentlemen
wish to see it, a dead letter.

For ten years it has been the doctrine of our courts, that the common
law was in force, and yet can gentlemen say, that there has been a
victim who has suffered under it? Many have experienced its protection,
none can complain of its oppression.

In order to demonstrate the aspiring ambition of this body politic, the
Judiciary, the honorable gentleman stated with much emphasis and feeling
that the judges had been hardy enough to send their mandate into the
Executive cabinet. Was the gentleman, sir, acquainted with the fact when
he made this statement? It differs essentially from what I know I have
heard upon the subject. I shall be allowed to state the fact.

Several commissions had been made out by the late Administration for
justices of the peace of this Territory. The commissions were complete;
they were signed and sealed, and left with the clerks of the office of
State to be handed to the persons appointed. The new Administration
found them on the Clerk's table, and thought proper to withhold them.
These officers are not dependent on the will of the President. The
persons named in the commissions considered that their appointments were
complete, and that the detention of their commissions was a wrong, and
not justified by the legitimate authority of the Executive. They applied
to the Supreme Court for a rule upon the Secretary of State, to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him to deliver up the
commissions. Let me ask, sir, what could the judges do? The rule to show
cause was a matter of course upon a new point, at least doubtful. To
have denied it, would have been to shut the doors of justice against the
parties. It concludes nothing, neither the jurisdiction nor the
regularity of the act. The judges did their duty; they gave an honorable
proof of their independence. They listened to the complaint of an
individual against your President, and have shown themselves disposed to
grant redress against the greatest man in the Government. If a wrong has
been committed, and the constitution authorizes their interference, will
gentlemen say that the Secretary of State, or even the President, is not
subject to law? And if they violate the law, where can we apply for
redress but to our courts of justice? But, sir, it is not true that the
judges issued their mandate to the Executive; they have only called upon
the Secretary of State to show them that what he has done is right. It
is but an incipient proceeding which decides nothing.

To show the inexpediency of the present bill, I shall endeavor to prove
the expediency of the judicial law of the last session. In doing this it
will be necessary to take a view of the leading features of the
pre-existing system, to inquire into its defects, and to examine how far
the evils complained of were remedied by the provisions of the late act.
It is not my intention to enter into the details of the former system;
it can be necessary only to state so much as will distinctly show its
defects.

There existed, sir, a Supreme Court, having original cognizance in a few
cases, but principally a court of appellate jurisdiction. This was the
great national court of dernier resort. Before this tribunal, questions
of unlimited magnitude and consequence, both of a civil and political
nature, received their final decision; and I may be allowed to call it
the national crucible of justice, in which the judgments of inferior
courts were to be reduced to their elements and cleansed from every
impurity. There was a Circuit Court, composed in each district of a
judge of the Supreme Court and the district judge. This was the chief
court of business both of a civil and criminal nature.

In each district a court was established for affairs of revenue, and of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. It is not necessary for the
purposes of the present argument to give a more extensive outline of the
former plan of our Judiciary. We discover that the judges of the Supreme
Court, in consequence of their composing a part of the circuit courts,
were obliged to travel from one extremity to the other of this extensive
country. In order to be in the court-house two months in the year they
were forced to be upon the road six. The Supreme Court being the court
of last resort, having final jurisdiction over questions of incalculable
importance, ought certainly to be filled with men not only of probity,
but of great talents, learning, patience, and experience. The union of
these qualities is rarely, very rarely found in men who have not passed
the meridian of life. My Lord Coke tells us no man is fit to be a judge
until he has numbered the lucubrations of twenty years. Men of studious
habits are seldom men of strong bodies. In the course of things it could
not be expected that men fit to be judges of your Supreme Courts would
be men capable of traversing the mountains and wildernesses of this
extensive country? It was an essential and great defect in this court,
that it required in men the combination of qualities, which it is a
phenomenon to find united. It required that they should possess the
learning and experience of years and the strength and activity of youth.
I may say further, Mr. Chairman, that this court, from its constitution,
tended to deterioration and not to improvement. Your judges, instead of
being in their closets and increasing by reflection and study their
stock of wisdom and knowledge, had not even the means of repairing the
ordinary waste of time. Instead of becoming more learned and more
capable, they would gradually lose the fruits of their former industry.
Let me ask if this was not a vicious construction of a court of the
highest authority and greatest importance in the nation? In a court from
which no one had an appeal and to whom it belonged to establish the
leading principles of national jurisprudence?

In the constitution of this court, as a court of last resort, there was
another essential defect. The appeals to this court are from the circuit
courts. The circuit court consists of the district judge and a judge of
the Supreme Court. In cases where the district judge is interested,
where he has been counsel, and where he has decided in the court below,
the judge of the Supreme Court alone composes the circuit court. What,
then, is substantially the nature of this appellate jurisdiction? In
truth and practice, the appeal is from a member of a court to the body
of the same court. The circuit courts are but emanations of the Supreme
Court. Cast your eyes upon the Supreme Court; you see it disappear, and
its members afterwards arising in the shape of circuit judges. Behold
the circuit judges; they vanish, and immediately you perceive the form
of the Supreme Court appearing. There is, sir, a magic in this
arrangement which is not friendly to justice. When the Supreme Court
assembles, appeals come from the various circuits of the United States.
There are appeals from the decisions of each judge. The judgments of
each member pass in succession under the revision of the whole body.
Will not a judge, while he is examining the sentence of a brother
to-day, remember that that brother will sit in judgment upon his
proceedings to-morrow? Are the members of a court thus constituted, free
from all motive, exempt from all bias, which could even remotely
influence opinion on the point of strict right? and yet let me ask
emphatically, whether this court, being the court of final resort,
should not be so constituted that the world should believe and every
suitor be satisfied, that in weighing the justice of a cause, nothing
entered the scales but its true merits?

Your Supreme Court, sir, I have never considered as any thing more than
the judges of assize sitting in bank. It is a system with which perhaps
I should find no fault, if the judges sitting in bank did not exercise a
final jurisdiction. Political institutions should be so calculated as
not to depend upon the virtues, but to guard against the vices and
weaknesses of men. It is possible that a judge of the Supreme Court
would not be influenced by the _esprit du corps_, that he would neither
be gratified by the affirmance, nor mortified by the reversal of his
opinions; but this, sir, is estimating the strength and purity of human
nature upon a possible, but not on its ordinary scale.

I believe, said Mr. B., that in practice the formation of the Supreme
Court frustrated, in a great degree, the design of its institution. I
believe that many suitors were discouraged from seeking a revision of
the opinions of the circuit court, by a deep impression of the
difficulties to be surmounted in obtaining the reversal of the judgment
of a court from the brethren of the judge who pronounced the judgment.
The benefit of a court of appeals, well constituted, is not confined to
the mere act of reviewing the sentence of an inferior court; but is more
extensively useful by the general operation of the knowledge of its
existence upon inferior courts. The power of uncontrollable decision is
of the most delicate and dangerous nature. When exercised in the courts,
it is more formidable than by any other branch of our government. It is
the Judiciary only which can reach the person, the property, or life of
an individual. The exercise of their power is scattered over separate
cases, and creates no common cause. The great safety under this power
arises from the right of appeal. A sense of this right combines the
reputation of the judge with the justice of the cause. In my opinion, it
is a strong proof of the wisdom of a judicial system when few causes are
carried into the court of the last resort. I would say, if it were not
paradoxical, that the very existence of a court of appeals ought to
destroy the occasion for it. The conscience of the judge, sir, will no
doubt be a great check upon him in the unbounded field of discretion
created by the uncertainty of law; but I should, in general cases, more
rely upon the effect produced by his knowledge, that an inadvertent or
designed abuse of power was liable to be corrected by a superior
tribunal. A court of appellate jurisdiction, organized upon sound
principles, should exist, though few causes arose for their decision;
for it is surely better to have a court and no causes, than to have
causes and no court. I now proceed, sir, to consider the defects which
are plainly discernible, or which have been discovered by practice in
the constitution of the circuit courts. These courts, from information
which I have received, I apprehend were originally constructed upon a
fallacious principle. I have heard it stated that the design of placing
the judges of the Supreme Court in the circuit courts, was to establish
uniform rules of decision throughout the United States. It was supposed
that the presiding judges of the circuit courts, proceeding from the
same body, would tend to identify the principles and rules of decision
in the several districts. In practice, a contrary effect has been
discovered to be produced by the peculiar organization of these courts.
In practice we have found not only a want of uniformity of rule between
the different districts, but no uniformity of rule in the same district.
No doubt there was a uniformity in the decisions of the same judge; but
as the same judge seldom sat twice successively in the same district,
and sometimes not till after an interval of two or three years, his
opinions were forgotten or reversed before he returned. The judges were
not educated in the same school. The practice of the courts, the forms
of proceeding, as well as the rules of property, are extremely various
in the different quarters of the United States. The lawyers of the
Eastern, the Middle, and Southern States, are scarcely professors of the
same science. These courts were in a state of perpetual fluctuation. The
successive terms gave you courts in the same district, as different from
each other as those of Connecticut and Virginia. No system of practice
could grow up, no certainty of rule could be established. The seeds sown
in one term scarcely vegetated before they were trodden under foot. The
condition of a suitor was terrible; the ground was always trembling
under his feet. The opinion of a former judge was no precedent to his
successor. Each considered himself bound to follow the light of his own
understanding. To exemplify these remarks, I will take the liberty of
stating a case which came under my own observation. An application
before one judge was made to quash an attachment in favor of a
subsequent execution creditor; the application was resisted upon two
grounds, and the learned judge, to whom the application was first made,
expressing his opinion in support of both grounds, dismissed the
motion. At the succeeding court, a different judge presided, and the
application was renewed and answered upon the same grounds. The second
learned judge was of opinion, that one point has no validity, but he
considered the other sustainable, and was about also to dismiss the
motion, but upon being pressed, at last consented to grant a rule to
show cause. At the third term, a third learned judge was on the bench,
and though the case was urged upon its former principles, he was of
opinion, that both answers to the application were clearly insufficient,
and accordingly quashed the attachment. When the opinions of his
predecessors were cited, he replied, that every man was to be saved by
his own faith.

Upon the opinion of one judge, a suitor would set out in a long course
of proceedings, and after losing much time and wasting much money, he
would be met by another judge, who would tell him he had mistaken his
road, that he must return to the place from which he started, and pursue
a different track. Thus it happened as to the chancery process to compel
the appearance of a defendant. Some of the judges considered themselves
bound by the rules in the English books, while others conceived that a
power belonged to the court, upon the service of a subpoena, to make a
short rule for the defendant to appear and answer, or that the bill
should be taken _pro confesso_. A case of this kind occurred where much
embarrassment was experienced. In the circuit court for the district of
Pennsylvania, a bill in chancery was filed against a person, who then
happened to be in that district, but whose place of residence was in the
North-western Territory. The subpoena was served, but there was no
answer nor appearance. The court to which the writ was returned, without
difficulty, upon an application, granted a rule for the party to appear
and answer at the expiration of a limited time, or that the bill be
taken _pro confesso_. A personal service of this rule being necessary,
the complainant was obliged to hire a messenger to travel more than a
thousand miles to serve a copy of the rule. At the ensuing court,
affidavit was made of the service, and a motion to make the rule
absolute. The scene immediately changed, a new judge presided, and it
was no longer the same court.

The authority was called for to grant such a rule. Was it warranted by
any act of Congress, or by the practice of the State? It was answered
there is no act of Congress--the State has no court of chancery. But
this proceeding was instituted, and has been brought to its present
stage at considerable expense, under the direction of this court. The
judge knew of no power the court had to direct the proceeding, and he
did not consider that the complainant could have a decree upon this bill
without going through the long train of process found in the books of
chancery practice. The complainant took this course, and at a future
time was told by another judge, that he was incurring an unnecessary
loss of time and money, and that a common rule would answer his purpose.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if any system could be devised more likely to
produce vexation and delay? Surely, sir, the law is uncertain enough in
itself, and its paths sufficiently intricate and tedious, not to require
that your suitors should be burdened with additional embarrassments by
the organization of your courts.

The circuit is the principal court of civil and criminal business; the
defects of this court were, therefore, most generally and sensibly felt.
The high characters of the judges at first brought suitors into the
courts; but the business was gradually declining, though causes
belonging to the jurisdiction of the courts were multiplying, the
continual oscillation of the court baffled all conjecture as to the
correct course of the proceeding or the event of a cause. The law ceased
to be a science. To advise your client it was less important to be
skilled in the books than to be acquainted with the character of the
judge who was to preside. When the term approached, the inquiry was,
what judge are we to have? What is his character as a lawyer? Is he
acquainted with chancery law? Is he a strict common lawyer, or a special
pleader?

When the character of the judge was ascertained, gentlemen would then
consider the nature of their causes, determine whether it was more
advisable to use means to postpone or to bring them to a hearing.

The talents of the judges rather increased the evil, than afforded a
corrective for the vicious constitution of these courts. They had not
drawn their knowledge from the same sources. Their systems were
different, and hence the character of the court more essentially changed
at each successive term. These difficulties and embarrassments banished
suitors from the court, and without more than a common motive, recourse
was seldom had to the Federal tribunals.

I have ever considered it, also, as a defect in this court, that it was
composed of judges of the highest and lowest grades. This, sir, was an
unnatural association; the members of the court stood on ground too
unequal to allow the firm assertion of his opinion to the district
judge. Instead of being elevated, he felt himself degraded by a seat
upon the bench of this court. In the district court he was every thing,
in the circuit court he was nothing. Sometimes he was obliged to leave
his seat, while his associate reviewed the judgment which he had given
in the court below. In all cases he was sensible that the sentences in
the court in which he was, were subject to the revision and control of a
superior jurisdiction where he had no influence, but the authority of
which was shared by the judge with whom he was acting. No doubt in some
instances the district judge was an efficient member of this court, but
this never arose from the nature of the system, but from the personal
character of the man. I have yet, Mr. Chairman, another fault to find
with the ancient establishment of the circuit courts. They consisted
only of two judges, and sometimes of one. The number was too small,
considering the extent and importance of the jurisdiction of the court.
Will you remember, sir, that they held the power of life and death,
without appeal? That their judgments were final over sums of two
thousand dollars, and their original jurisdiction restrained by no
limits of value, and that this was the court to which appeals were
carried from the district court.

I have often heard, sir, that in a multitude of counsel there was
wisdom, and if the converse of the maxim be equally true, this court
must have been very deficient. When we saw a single judge reversing the
judgment of the district court, the objection was most striking, but the
court never had the weight which it ought to have possessed, and would
have enjoyed had it been composed of more members. But two judges
belonged to the court, and inconvenience was sometimes felt from a
division of their opinions. And this inconvenience was but poorly
obviated by the provision of the law that in such cases the cause should
be continued to the succeeding term, and receive its decision from the
opinion of the judge who should then preside.

I do not pretend, Mr. Chairman, to have enumerated all the defects which
belonged to the former judicial system. But I trust those which I have
pointed out, in the minds of candid men, will justify the attempt of the
Legislature to revise that system, and to make a fairer experiment of
that part of the plan of our constitution which regards the Judicial
power. The defects, sir, to which I have alluded, had been a long time
felt and often spoken of. Remedies had frequently been proposed. I have
known the subject brought forward in Congress or agitated in private,
ever since I have had the honor of a seat upon this floor. I believe,
sir, a great and just deference for the author of the ancient scheme
prevented any innovation upon its material principles; there was no
gentleman who felt the deference more than myself, nor should I have
ever hazarded a change upon speculative opinion. But practice had
discovered defects which might well escape the most discerning mind in
planning the theory. The original system could not be more than
experiment; it was built upon no experience. It was the first
application of principles to a new state of things. The first judicial
law displays great ability, and it is no disparagement of the author to
say its plan is not perfect.

I know, sir, that some have said, and perhaps not a few have believed,
that the new system was introduced not so much with a view to its
improvement of the old, as to the places which it provided for the
friends of the Administration. This is a calumny so notoriously false,
and so humble, as not to require nor to deserve an answer upon this
floor. It cannot be supposed that the paltry object of providing for
sixteen unknown men could have ever offered an inducement to a great
party basely to violate their duty, meanly to sacrifice their character,
and foolishly to forego all future hopes.

I now come, Mr. Chairman, to examine the changes which were made by the
late law. This subject has not been correctly understood. It has every
where been erroneously represented. I have heard much said about the
additional courts created by the act of last session. I perceive them
spoken of in the President's Message. In the face of this high
authority, I undertake to state, that no additional court was
established by that law. Under the former system there was one Supreme
Court, and there is but one now. There were seventeen district courts,
and there are no more now. There was a circuit court held in each
district, and such is the case at present. Some of the district judges
are directed to hold their courts at new places, but there is still in
each district but one district court. What, sir, has been done? The
unnatural alliance between the Supreme and district courts has been
severed, but the jurisdiction of both these courts remains untouched.
The power or authority of neither of them has been augmented or
diminished. The jurisdiction of the circuit court has been extended to
the cognizance of debts of four hundred dollars, and this is the only
material change in the power of that court. The chief operation of the
late law is a new organization of the circuit courts. To avoid the evils
of the former plan, it became necessary to create a new corps of judges.
It was considered that the Supreme Court ought to be stationary, and to
have no connection with the judges over whose sentences they had an
appellate jurisdiction.

To have formed a circuit court out of the district judges, would have
allowed no court of appeal from the district court, except the Supreme
Court, which would have been attended with great inconvenience. But this
scheme was opposed by a still greater difficulty. In many districts the
duties of the judge require a daily attention. In all of them business
of great importance may on unexpected occurrences require his presence.

This plan was thought of; it was well examined and finally rejected, in
consequence of strong objections to which it was liable. Nothing
therefore remained but to compose the circuit court of judges distinct
from those of the other courts. Admitting the propriety of excluding
from this court the judges of the Supreme and district courts, I think
the late Congress cannot be accused of any wanton expense, nor even of a
neglect of economy in the new establishment. This extensive country has
been divided into six circuits, and three judges appointed for each
circuit. Most of the judges have twice a year to attend a court in three
States, and there is not one of them who has not to travel further, and
who in time will not have more labor to perform than any judge of the
State courts. When we call to mind that the jurisdiction of this court
reaches the life of the citizen, and that in civil cases its judgments
are final to a large amount, certainly it will not be said that it ought
to have been composed of less than three judges. One was surely not
enough, and if it had been doubtful whether two were not sufficient, the
inconvenience which would have frequently arisen from an equal division
of opinion, justifies the provision which secures a determination in all
cases.

It was, additionally, very material to place on the bench of this court
a judge from each State, as the court was in general bound to conform to
the law and the practice of the several States.

I trust, sir, the committee are satisfied that the number of judges
which compose the circuit court is not too great, and that the
Legislature would have been extremely culpable to have committed the
high powers of this court to fewer hands. Let me now ask, if the
compensation allowed to these judges is extravagant? It is little more
than half the allowance made to the judges of the Supreme Court. It is
but a small proportion of the ordinary practice of those gentlemen of
the bar, who are fit, and to whom we ought to look to fill the places.
You have given a salary of two thousand dollars. The puisne judges of
Pennsylvania, I believe, have more. When you deduct the expenses of the
office, you will leave but a moderate compensation for service, but a
scanty provision for a family. When, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen coolly
consider the amendments of the late law, I flatter myself their candor
will at least admit that the present modification was fairly designed to
meet and remedy the evils of the old system.

The Supreme Court has been rendered stationary. Men of age, of learning,
and of experience, are now capable of holding a seat on the bench; they
have time to mature their opinions in causes on which they are called to
decide, and they have leisure to devote to their books, and to augment
their store of knowledge. It was our hope, by the present establishment
of the court, to render it the future pride, and honor, and safety of
the nation. It is this tribunal which must stamp abroad the judicial
character of our country. It is here that ambassadors and foreign agents
resort for justice; and it belongs to this high court to decide finally,
not only on controversies of unlimited value between individuals, and on
the more important collision of State pretensions, but also upon the
validity of the laws of the States, and of this Government. Will it be
contended that such great trusts ought to be reposed in feeble or
incapable hands? It has been asserted that this court will not have
business to employ it. The assertion is supported neither by what is
past, nor by what is likely to happen. During the present session of
Congress, at their last term, the court was fully employed for two weeks
in the daily hearing of causes. But its business must increase. There is
no longer that restraint upon appeals from the circuit court, which was
imposed by the authority of the judge of the court to which the appeal
was to be carried; no longer will the apprehension of a secret
unavoidable bias in favor of the decision of a member of their own body,
shake the confidence of a suitor, in resorting to this court, who thinks
that justice has not been done to him in the court below. The
progressive increase of the wealth and population of the country, will
unavoidably swell the business of the court. But there is a more certain
and unfailing source of employment, which will arise in the appeals from
the courts of the National Territory. From the courts of original
cognizance in this Territory, it affords the only appellate
jurisdiction. If gentlemen will look to the state of property of a vast
amount in this city, they must be satisfied that the Supreme Court will
have enough to do for the money which is paid them.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that he did not rise for the purpose of assuming the
gauntlet which had been so proudly thrown by the Goliath of the adverse
party; not but that he believed even his feeble powers, armed with the
simple weapon of truth, a sling and a stone, capable of prostrating on
the floor that gigantic boaster, armed cap-à-pie as he was; but that he
was impelled by the desire to rescue from misrepresentation the
arguments of his colleague, (Mr. GILES,) who was now absent during
indisposition. That absence, said Mr. R., is a subject of peculiar
regret to me, not only because I could have wished his vindication to
have devolved on abler hands, but because he had to-day lost the triumph
which, yesterday, he could not have failed to enjoy; that of seeing his
opponent reduced to the wretched expedient of perverting and mutilating
his arguments through inability to meet and answer them. Mr. R. said,
that this was the strongest proof which could be given of inadequacy to
refute any position. He, therefore, left to the gentleman the victory
which he had obtained over his own arguments; but, while he felt no
disposition to disturb him in this enjoyment, he hoped he should be
permitted to correct some of the misstatements which had been made of
his colleague's observations.

In the view which he had taken of the conduct of our predecessors, in
the chain of whose measures the law now proposed to be repealed formed
an important link, the funding of the debt of the United States, and the
assumption of those of the individual States, were comprehended. An
attempt is made to construe this disapprobation into a design of
violating the public faith. Mr. R. denied that one syllable had fallen
from his colleague, indicative of a right, or disposition on his part,
to withhold the payment of any public engagements. Against these
destructive measures his colleague had raised his voice; against the
fatal and absurd maxim, that a public debt was a public blessing, he had
indeed protested; but not a word escaped his lips, because no such
sentiment lurked in his heart, which could be construed into a
declaration that the present Legislature possessed the same power over
the engagements of former Legislatures which they possessed over
ordinary laws; that of modifying or abrogating them with the same
freedom which had been exercised in their establishment. Since the
gentleman had betrayed such peculiar sensibility on the subject of the
debt, Mr. R. relied on his support, when a measure should be brought
forward for its final and rapid extinguishment, not by a sponge, but by
a fair reimbursement of one hundred cents for every dollar due.

On other topics, the Algerine depredations, Indian war, &c., it might as
easily be shown that the representation had been equally unfair. He
should not dwell upon them, because they were less calculated to make
the unfavorable impression on the public mind, which had been attempted
on the subject of the debt. He would dismiss them with a single remark:
the uses to which these incidents were applied, and not the events
themselves, formed the subject of his colleague's animadversions.

But to the long catalogue of unpopular acts which have deprived their
authors of the public confidence, the gentleman tells us, he and his
friends were "goaded" by the clamor of their opponents. He solemnly
assures us, that in the adoption of those measures they clearly foresaw
the downfall of their power; but impressed with a conviction that they
were essential to the public good, and disdaining all considerations of
a personal nature, they nobly sacrificed their political existence on
the altar of the general welfare; and we are called upon now to revere
in them the self-immolated victims at the shrine of patriotism. These
are, indeed, lofty pretensions; and although I shall not peremptorily
deny, in this age of infidelity, I may be permitted to doubt them; for I
call upon this committee to decide whether, in this day's discussion,
the gentleman has evinced that purity of heart, or that elevation of
sentiment, which could justify me in clothing him with the attributes of
Curtius or of the Decii?

I wish especially to know, whether the common law of libels which
attaches to this constitution, be the doctrine laid down by Lord
Mansfield, or that which has immortalized Mr. Fox? And whether the
jurisdiction thus usurped over the press, in defiance of an express
amendatory clause, which must be construed to annul every previous
provision, if any such there be, which comes within its purview, be an
example adduced to illustrate the position, which I certainly shall
never contest, that "what the constitution does not permit to be done by
direct means, cannot, constitutionally, be indirectly effected?" But to
reconcile us to this usurpation, we are informed, that the principles of
the common law are favorable only to liberty; that they neither have
been, nor can be enlisted in the cause of persecution. If I did not
misunderstand the gentleman, he said that no prosecution had occurred
under that law. He has therefore never heard of the case of Luther
Baldwin. I speak of the New Jersey case; nor that of Williams. Other
instances, I learn from high authority, have taken place in Vermont.

Mr. R. said he was unhackneyed in the ways of majorities; his experience
had been very limited; but was he to conclude, from these observations,
that it was the common law, the uniform usage heretofore of this
Government, for this House to be the mere instrument for effecting the
Executive will, a Chamber for enregistering Presidential edicts? It is
said, that the document on this subject was one which the Executive had
no right to lay before the House. When did the right of the President to
recommend modifications of the Judiciary system cease? Such
recommendations had heretofore formed a prominent feature in two
successive Executive communications made at the commencement of two
successive sessions of Congress. Did the right of the Executive to
recommend, and of Congress to act, cease at the precise period when the
faultless model of the last session was perfected? Mr. R. said, that the
gentleman from Delaware had taken such a range, and thrown out such a
vast deal of matter, that, in attempting to reply to some of his
observations, he was necessarily led into many desultory remarks. The
present system, it seems, was necessary, from the inevitable corporeal
infirmity of the judges: the unavoidable effect of the tedious probation
indispensable to that venerable station.

Let us compare the former practice with the present theory. The judge of
one of the two districts into which Virginia had been divided, was
contemporary with him at school. He is certainly neither an infirm nor
hoary sage. His associate from Maryland had been an active and gallant
partisan at the siege of Pensacola, during our Revolutionary war: not
contending, however, under those banners where you would have expected
to find a man who occupies so dignified a station under the Government
of the United States; but fighting the battles of his King. Bravely,
yet, alas! unsuccessfully contending against the spirit of
insubordination and jacobinism which threatens to sweep from the earth
every thing valuable to man, against which the gentleman from Delaware
is also eager to enter the lists. The selections which have been made
from either House of Congress seem to have had as little reference to
age and experience, which are said to be indispensable to the Judicial
character. Upon a subject connected with those appointments, we have
been told that the Executive had a right to presume a vacancy in all
cases where a judge of an inferior tribunal had been appointed to a seat
on the bench of a superior court; and that the new office vests, not at
the time when the judge is notified of his promotion, nor at the date of
his acceptance, but from the date of his commission. Mr. R. said, that
he certainly did not mean to contend with the gentleman from Delaware on
points of law, yet he would put a question to that gentleman. It will
readily be conceded, that the vacating of the former office is the
condition of the acceptance of the latter. Suppose a judge, after the
date of his new commission, but prior to his notification or acceptance
thereof, perform a Judicial act, was that act, therefore, invalid? Could
his successor, on the receipt of his commission, exercise the functions
of judge, prior to the resignation of the former incumbent? Could any
office be at the same time in the possession of two persons? Did not
this doctrine imply a right on part of the Government to anticipate the
resignation of any judge, to compel his assent to an act vacating his
office? The new commission, under these circumstances, either did or did
not give a claim to its possessor on the office. If it did not, the
Executive had a right to withhold it. If it did, a judge may be expelled
from office, without his consent, and provided, at any time afterwards
he shall acquiesce, the expulsion is legal. Besides, by what authority
does a member of this House hold his seat under an election previous to
his appointment of district judge of North Carolina? For this office a
commission was issued, as I am credibly informed. But, sir, we shall be
told, that the manner in which this affair was transacted ought not to
affect our decision. It is with me an irrefragable proof of the
inexpediency of the law, and of course conclusive evidence of the
expediency of its repeal.

But the constitution is said to forbid it. And here permit me to express
my satisfaction, that gentlemen have agreed to construe the constitution
by the rules of common sense. This mode is better adapted to the
capacity of unprofessional men, and will preclude the gentleman from
arrogating to himself, and half a dozen other characters in this
committee, the sole right of expounding that instrument, as he had done
in the case of the law which is proposed to be repealed. Indeed, as one
of those who would be unwilling to devolve upon that gentleman the high
priesthood of the constitution, and patiently submit to technical
expositions which I might not even comprehend, I am peculiarly pleased
that we are invited to exercise our understandings in the construction
of this instrument. A precedent, said to be quite analogous, has been
adduced--the decision of the judges of Virginia, on a similar question.
A pamphlet, entitled "A Friend to the Constitution," has been quoted.
Public opinion informs me that this is the production of the pen of a
gentleman who holds a pre-eminent station on the Federal bench. Am I so
to consider it? If this be understood, it is entitled to high respect;
the _facts_, at least, must be unquestionable.

The courts of Virginia consisted of one general court of common law; a
court of chancery, composed of three judges; and a court of admiralty.
The judges of all those courts held their office during good behavior;
and did, by law, constitute a court of appeals. The general court
becoming manifestly incompetent to the extensive duties assigned to it,
a system of circuit courts was adopted in 1787, and the judges of the
court of appeals were appointed to ride the circuits. This law the
judges pronounced unconstitutional, and agreed, unanimously, to
remonstrate against it. After lamenting the necessity of deciding
between the constitution and the law, and that, in a case personally
interesting to themselves, they say, "on this view of the subject, the
following alternatives presented themselves; either to decide the
question, or resign their offices. The latter would have been their
choice, if they could have considered those questions as affecting their
individual interests only." Yes, sir, and such was the character of
those men, that none doubted the sincerity of this declaration. They
then go on to declare, that the Legislature have no right even to
increase their duties, by a modification of the courts; a privilege for
which no one here has contended. In respect, much more, it is believed,
to the characters of those venerable men, than to this opinion, the
Legislature did not enforce the new regulations. The law was
new-modelled, a separate court of appeals established, the judges of
which were to be elected by joint ballot, in conformity with the
constitution. New members were added to the general court, and it was
declared to be their duty to ride the circuits. The judges of chancery,
of the general court, and court of admiralty, who had not been elected,
in pursuance of the constitution, judges of appeals, but on whom that
duty was imposed by law, were relieved from the further discharge of it.
In this arrangement several of the judges were understood to have been
consulted; and on the ballot the six senior judges were elected, five
into the court of appeals, and the sixth in the court of chancery.
Nevertheless, against this law the judges also protested, as an invasion
of the Judiciary establishment, denying the right of the Legislature to
deprive them of office in any other mode than is pointed out in the
constitution, (impeachment;) but to make way for the present salutary
system, they do, in their mere free will, resign their appointments as
judges of the court of appeals, and as they do not hold any separate
commission for that office, which might be returned, they do order the
same to be recorded.

Now, sir, I shall not contend, as I certainly might, and with great
reason, that the practice of Virginia must be considered as settling the
constitutional doctrine of the State, the opinions of individuals,
however enlightened and respectable, notwithstanding; under which
practice two chancellors have been removed from their office of judges
in chancery, as well as of appeals, and the judges of the general court
and court of admiralty also divested of their seats on the bench of the
court of appeals, although a court of appeals was supposed necessary,
and was retained in the new system; nor shall I insist on the disparity
between the stability of the Judicial branch of Government in the eye of
the Constitution of Virginia, and that of the United States,
respectively, as surely I might. For the constitution of Virginia has a
retrospect to pre-existing Judicial establishments, which experience had
tested, which were allowed to be beneficial, and which it is contended
were sanctioned by it. That of the United States, formed when the
Confederacy had no such establishments, is to be created, from time to
time: in other words, to be modified, as experience shall point out
their defects--this power being devolved on a body constituted by
express _unalterable_ provisions. No, sir, I shall not dilate upon these
forcible topics; I will concede, for argument sake, that the doctrine
contended for by the judges of Virginia, was the true constitutional
doctrine, and will apply it to the bill on your table, having first
applied it to the act on which it is intended to operate. Previous to
the existence of that act, the duty of judge of the circuit court was
performed by the judges of the Supreme Court, who constituted a court of
appeals, and by the judges of the respective districts. These were
judges of the circuit court to every intent and purpose, as completely
as the judges of Virginia were judges of appeals. By the operation of
the law of the last session, they have been divested of this _office_,
and other persons have been appointed to it. Much stress is laid, much
ingenuity exercised to make metaphysical distinctions between the court
and the office. I will grant all that gentlemen contend for, that there
is a wide distinction. Does it affect the case? Does it alter the fact?
The late circuit courts were not only abolished--the persons holding the
office of judge of those courts no longer hold it; they have neither
been impeached, nor have they resigned. They have not even accepted any
new appointment inconsistent with it, and by which it became vacant. The
function of judge of the circuit court does or does not constitute an
office. If it does, then the judges of the supreme and district courts
have been deprived of their offices, (the discharge of whose duties, be
it remembered, constitutes no small part of the consideration for which
they receive their salaries.) If it does not, then the circuit judges
are not now about to be deprived of their offices. On the passage of the
law of last session, did we hear any protest against its
unconstitutionality from the Supreme or district courts? Of any
resignations of the office of judge of the circuit court, in order "that
a salutary system might take effect?" And yet, sir, is not that office
as distinct from that of Supreme or district judge, as the office of
judge of appeals in Virginia is from that of judge of the general court,
chancery, or admiralty? Are not the jurisdictions of those courts
separate and distinct? Both never having original jurisdiction of the
same subjects; and an appeal lying from the inferior to the superior
tribunal, as in Virginia, although the officers of those tribunals may
be the same individuals? What, then, is the difference between taking
the office of appellate jurisdiction from the judge who possessed
original jurisdiction, or taking the office of original jurisdiction
from the appellate judge? How is the independence of the judge more
affected by the one act than by the other?

To prove the unconstitutionality of this bill, then, by a recurrence to
the doctrine of the judiciary of Virginia, is to prove the
unconstitutionality of the law of which it will effect the repeal. And
no argument has been, or, in my poor opinion, can be, adduced, to prove
the unconstitutionality of the one, which will not equally apply to the
other. No, sir, gentlemen are precluded by their own act from assuming
the ground of the judges of Virginia; they are obliged to concede that
we have the power, because they have already exercised it, of modifying
the courts, and here they concede the question. They tell you that this,
however, must, to be constitutional, be a "bona fide" modification. It
becomes them to prove, then, that this is a _mala fide_ modification.

Gentlemen have not, they cannot meet the distinction between removing
the judges from office for the purpose of putting in another person, and
abolishing an office because it is useless or oppressive. Suppose the
collectors of your taxes held their offices by the tenure of good
behavior, would the abolition of your taxes have been an infraction of
that tenure? Or would you be bound to retain them, lest it should
infringe a private right? If the repeal of the taxes would be an
infringement of that tenure, and therefore unconstitutional, could you
ring all the changes upon the several duties on stamps, carriages,
stills, &c., and, because you had retained the man and any one of these
offices without diminishing his emoluments, abolish the others? Would
not this be to impair the tenure of the office which was abolished, or
to which another officer might have been appointed by a new regulation?
Have not the judges, in the same manner, been deprived of one of their
offices? And is not the tenure as completely impaired thereby, as if the
other had been taken away also? Although it will be granted that the
_tenant_ is not so much affected, since, with one office, he has the
salary formerly attached to both.

I agree that the constitution is a limited grant of power, and that none
of its general phrases are to be construed into an extension of that
grant. I am free to declare, that if the intent of this bill is to get
rid of the judges, it is a perversion of your power to a base purpose;
it is an unconstitutional act. If, on the contrary, it aims not at the
displacing of one set of men, from whom you differ in political opinion,
with a view to introduce others, but at the general good by abolishing
useless offices, it is a constitutional act. The _quo animo_ determines
the nature of this act, as it determines the innocence or guilt of other
acts. But we are told that this is to declare the Judiciary, which the
constitution has attempted to fortify against the other branches of
Government, dependent on the will of the Legislature, whose discretion
alone is to limit their encroachments. Whilst I contend that the
Legislature possess this discretion, I am sensible of the delicacy with
which it is to be used. It is like the power of impeachment, or of
declaring war, to be exercised under high responsibility. But the power
is denied since its exercise will enable flagitious men to overturn the
Judiciary, in order to put their creatures into office, and to wreak
their vengeance on those who have become obnoxious by their merit. Yet
the gentleman expressly says, that arguments drawn from a supposition of
extreme political depravity, prove nothing; that every Government
pre-supposes a certain degree of honesty in its rulers, and that to
argue from extreme cases is totally inadmissible. Yet the whole of this
argument is founded on the supposition of a total want of principle in
the Legislature and Executive. In other words, arguments drawn from the
hypothesis are irresistible when urged in favor of that gentleman's
opinion; when they militate against him, they are totally inapplicable.
It is said that the bill on your table cannot constitutionally be
passed, because unprincipled men will pervert the power to the basest of
purposes; that, hereafter, we may expect a revolution on the bench of
justice, on every change of party, and the politics of the litigants,
not the merits of the case, are to govern its decisions. The Judiciary
is declared to be the guardian of the constitution against infraction,
and the protection of the citizen, as well against Legislative as
Executive oppression. Hence the necessity of an equal independence of
both. For it is declared to be an absurdity, that we should possess the
power of controlling a department of Government which has the right of
checking us; since thereby that check may be either impaired or
annihilated. This is a new doctrine of check and balance, according to
which the constitution has unwisely given to an infant Legislature the
power of impeaching their guardians, the judges. Apply this theory to
the reciprocal control of the two branches of the Legislature over each
other and the Executive, and of the Executive over them. But, sir, this
law cannot be passed, because the character of the bench is to be given
to it by the Legislature, to the entire prostration of its independence
and impartiality. It will be conceded, that measures, such as have been
portrayed, will never be taken, unless the sentiment of the ruling party
is ready to support them. Although gentlemen contend, that the office of
judge cannot be abolished, they are not hardy enough to deny that it may
be created. Where then, sir, is the check, supposing such a state of
things as the gentleman has imagined, (and which he has also declared
cannot be conceived,) which shall prevent unprincipled men from
effecting the same object by increasing the number of judges, so as to
overrule, by their creatures, the decisions of the courts? Would not
public opinion be as ready to sanction the one as the other of these
detestable acts? Would not the same evil which has excited such
apprehension in the minds of gentlemen, be thus effected by means even
more injurious than those which they have specified? Without any breach
of the constitution an unprincipled faction may effect the end which is
so much apprehended from the measure now contemplated to be adopted. I
might add, that, when the public sentiment becomes thus corrupt, the
ties of any constitution will be found too feeble to control the
vengeful ambition of a triumphant faction. The rejection of this bill
does not secure the point which has furnished matter for so much
declamation. Its friends are represented as grasping at power not
devolved upon them by the constitution, which hereafter is to be made
the instrument of destroying every judicial office, for the purpose of
reviving them and filling the places with their partisans.

I have long been in the habit of attending to the arguments of the
gentleman from Delaware, and I have generally found, in their converse,
a ready touchstone, the test of which they are rarely calculated to
withstand. If you are precluded from passing this law, lest depraved men
make it a precedent to destroy the independence of your Judiciary, do
you not concede that a desperate faction, finding themselves about to be
dismissed from the confidence of their country, may pervert the power of
erecting courts, to provide to an extent for their adherents and
themselves? and that however flagrant that abuse of power, it is
remediless, and must be submitted to? Will not the history of all
Governments warrant the assertion, that the creation of new and
unnecessary offices, as a provision for political partisans, is an evil
more to be dreaded than the abolition of useless ones? Is not an abuse
of power more to be dreaded from those who have lost the public
confidence than from those whose interest it will be to cultivate and
retain it? And does not the doctrine of our opponents prove that, at
every change of administration, the number of your judges are probably
to be doubled? Does it not involve the absurdity that, in spite of all
constitutional prohibitions, Congress may exercise the power of creating
an indefinite number of placemen, who are to be maintained through life
at the expense of the community? But, when these cases are cited, you
are gravely told that they suppose a degree of political depravity which
puts an end to all argument. Here, sir, permit me to state an important
difference of opinion between the two sides of this House. We are
accused of an ambitious usurpation of power; of a design to destroy a
great department of Government, because it thwarts our views, and of a
lawless thirst of self-aggrandizement which no consideration can
restrain. Let us not be amused by words. Let us attend to facts. They
will show who are contending for unlimited, and who for limited power.
The opponents of this bill contend that they did possess the power of
creating offices to an indefinite amount; which, when created, were
beyond the control of the succeeding Legislature. They, of course,
contend for the existence of such a power in the present Legislature,
for whose exercise there is no security but their self-respect. In other
words, that if the present majority should incur the suspicion of the
people, they may, as soon as there is any indication of their having
forfeited the public confidence, on the signal of their dismissal from
their present station, make ample and irrepealable provision for
themselves and their adherents, by the creation of an adequate number of
judicial offices. Now, sir, this is a power which we reject, though it
is insisted that we possess it. We deny that such an authority does
exist in us. We assert that we are not clothed with the tremendous power
of erecting, in defiance of the whole spirit and express letter of the
constitution, a vast judicial aristocracy over the heads of our
fellow-citizens, on whose labor it is to prey. Who, then, are, in
reality, the advocates of a limited authority, and who are the champions
of a dangerous and uncontrollable power? In my estimation, the wisest
prayer that ever was composed is that which deprecates the being led
into temptation. I have no wish to be exposed myself, nor to see my
friends exposed, to the dangerous allurements which the adverse doctrine
holds out. Do gentlemen themselves think that the persons, whom I see
around me, ought to be trusted with such powers? Figure to yourselves a
set of men, whose incapacity or want of principle has brought on them
the odium of their country, receiving, in the month of December, the
solemn warning, that on the 4th of March following, they are to be
dismissed from the helm of Government; establish the doctrine now
contended for, and what may we not expect? Yes, sir, the doctrine
advanced by our opponents is that of usurpation and ambition. It denies
the existence of one power by establishing another infinitely more
dangerous; and this you are told is to protect, through the organ of an
independent judiciary, the vanquished party from the persecution of
their antagonists, although it has been shown that, by increasing the
number of judges, any tone whatever may be given to the bench.

The theory for which gentlemen contend seems to me far-fetched and
overstrained. A mighty enginery is set in motion, which to all good
purposes is ineffectual, although formidable in the perpetration of
mischief. If, however, the people should be of a different opinion, I
trust that at the next election they will apply the constitutional
corrective. That is the true check; every other check is at variance
with the principle, that a free people are capable of self-government.

But, sir, if you pass the law, the judges are to put their veto upon it
by declaring it unconstitutional. Here is a new power, of a dangerous
and uncontrollable nature, contended for. The decision of a
constitutional question must rest somewhere. Shall it be confided to men
immediately responsible to the people, or to those who are
irresponsible? for the responsibility by impeachment is little less than
a name. From whom is a corrupt decision most to be feared? To me it
appears that the power which has the right of passing, without appeal,
on the validity of your laws, is your sovereign. But an extreme case is
put; a bill of attainder is passed; are the judges to support the
constitution or the law? Shall they obey God or Mammon? Yet you cannot
argue from such cases. But, sir, are we not as deeply interested in the
true exposition of the constitution, as the judges can be? With all the
deference to their talents, is not Congress as capable of forming a
correct opinion as they are? Are not its members acting under a
responsibility to public opinion, which can and will check their
aberrations from duty? Let a case, not an imaginary one, be stated:
Congress violates the constitution by fettering the press; the judicial
corrective is applied to; far from protecting the liberty of the
citizen, or the letter of the constitution, you find them outdoing the
Legislature in zeal; pressing the common law of England to their service
where the sedition law did not apply. Suppose your reliance had been
altogether on this broken staff, and not on the elective principle? Your
press might have been enchained till doomsday, your citizens
incarcerated for life, and where is your remedy? But if the construction
of the constitution is left with us, there are no longer limits to our
power, and this would be true if an appeal did not lie through the
elections, from us to the nation, to whom alone, and not a few
privileged individuals, it belongs to decide, in the last resort, on the
constitution. Gentlemen tell us that our doctrine will carry the people
to the gallows if they suffer themselves to be misled into the belief
that the judges are not the expositors of the constitution. Their
practice has carried the people to infamous punishment, to fine and
imprisonment; and had they affixed the penalty of death to their
unconstitutional laws, judges would not have been wanting to conduct
them to the gibbet.

Mr. MACON.--As no other member at present seems disposed to take the
floor, I will ask the attention of the committee for a few minutes. I
have attended with the greatest patience and diligence, to the arguments
of gentlemen who oppose the bill as unconstitutional; and had they
produced a single doubt in my mind on the point of constitutionality, I
should most certainly have voted with them against the bill on your
table; but I can with truth say, I have not heard any argument which has
in the least changed my first conviction, that we have a constitutional
right to pass it.

I should not, I believe, have spoken on this question, had not my
colleagues, who differ with me in opinion, thought proper to bring into
view a vote of the Legislature of the State, instructing her Senators
and recommending it to the Representatives to use their best endeavors
to obtain a repeal of the last Judiciary act. On this resolution of the
State Legislature, they made some extraordinary remarks, which I mean to
notice; but first permit me to inform the committee, that it has been
the constant practice of the Legislature of that State, from the
commencement of the General Government to the present day, to instruct
her Senators, and to recommend to her Representatives, to pursue such
measures on all the great national questions that have occurred, as the
Legislature judged the interest of the State required, and this
proceeding has never been considered improper. I shall endeavor to
answer the gentlemen in the order they spoke, beginning with my
colleague (Mr. HENDERSON,) who was first on the floor. If I understand
him rightly, (and if I do not he will correct me, because it is not my
desire to misstate a single word,) he said that the Legislature of the
State might have adopted the resolutions in consequence of the Message
of the President; but, upon examination of the dates, this will be found
to be impossible. The message could not have reached the Legislature
before the question on the resolutions was taken and decided; and on no
important question was that body ever more unanimous; and though my
colleague has said the question was there viewed but on one side, and
decided in a manner _ex parte_, yet I will be bold to say, if there were
any members in that Legislature who thought on this subject as he does,
he enjoyed the same right there that my colleague does here, to deliver
his sentiments.

Knowing as I do the great talents and integrity of my colleague, and I
believe no one on this floor knows them better, I was surprised when he
charged others with being under the influence of passion, when his
conduct must convince them that he was guided by the very passion which
he attributed to others. He quoted the Constitution of North Carolina,
let us examine it, and see whether his argument can be aided by the
practice under that instrument. The thirteenth article is in the
following words: that "the General Assembly shall, by joint ballot of
both Houses, appoint judges of the supreme court of law and of equity,
judges of admiralty, and attorney general, who shall be commissioned by
the Governor, and hold their offices during good behavior." On this
clause he noted the independence of the State Judiciary; and they are
independent so long as the law creating their office is in force, and no
longer; and it is worthy of notice, that in this section, no mention is
made of salary, and yet the judges have been considered as independent
as the Judges of the United States. Soon after the adoption of the
constitution, the Legislature of the States established courts in
conformity thereto; first county courts, and then superior, and
afterwards, by a Legislative act, without electing a single new judge,
gave the superior courts the additional jurisdiction of a court of
equity, and never a solitary complaint, that this law was
unconstitutional; and it must be acknowledged, that if you can make a
court of law also a court of equity, by a Legislative act, you can by
the same power take it away; and what becomes, in this case, of the
commission which is to be held during good behavior? It is, according to
my construction, to last no longer than the law which created the office
remains in force, and this is long enough to make the judges
independent. As to the salary of the Judges of North Carolina, the
twenty-first section of the constitution says, "they shall have adequate
salaries during their continuance in office," and yet with this clear
right in the Legislature, to lessen as well as to add to their salaries,
the judges, it is agreed, are independent. My colleague well knows, that
many attempts have been made to deprive the superior courts of
exercising any jurisdiction in cases of equity; and he also knows, that
attempts have been made to establish a court of appeals, which should
revise the decisions of the superior courts now in being; and by the
constitution of the State, any supreme court may, on presentment of a
grand jury, try the governor for maladministration, &c., and I believe
the present courts are authorized to do this. I have not at this place
been able to see the act which gives this authority; but no doubt is
entertained of the fact.

It is clear, then, that in North Carolina, all parties have thought,
that "during good behavior," only meant so long as the office existed;
because, by establishing a court of appeals, the judges now in being
would not be supreme judges, and in all these various attempts, no one
ever charged either of them to be unconstitutional. On examination of
the Constitution of North Carolina, it will be found that it makes
provision for the appointment of other officers by the Legislature, but
says nothing about adequate compensation, except in the section last
read, and if you take the office away, what is an adequate compensation
for doing nothing? Another proof might be drawn from the Constitution of
North Carolina, in favor of the opinion I hold, which is taken from the
twenty-ninth section, that "no Judge of a Supreme Court shall have a
seat in the General Assembly," and my colleague knows, that the present
judges could not hold a seat there, because they are supreme judges. And
he also knows, that no one ever doubted the constitutional right of the
Legislature to establish the courts before mentioned; and it seems to me
this, on his construction, would be a violation of the constitution,
because, having once made a Supreme Court, it must always remain so, to
secure, what he calls, the independence of the judges.

Sir, I was astonished when my colleague said, that the judges should
hold their offices, whether useful or not, and that their independence
was necessary, as he emphatically said, to protect the people against
their worst enemies, themselves; their usefulness is the only true test
of their necessity, and if there is no use for them, they ought not to
be continued. I will here ask my colleague whether, since the year 1783,
he has heard of any disorder in the State we represent, or whether any
act has been done there which can warrant or justify such an opinion,
that "it is necessary to have judges to protect the people from their
worst enemies, themselves." I had thought we, the people, formed this
Government, and might be trusted with it. My colleague never could have
uttered this sentence, had he not been governed by that passion which he
supposes governs others. It is true that we are not a rich and wealthy
State, but it is equally true, that there is no State in the Union more
attached to order and law; and my colleague himself would not say that
it was necessary to have judges for this purpose in the country we
represent; the people there behave decently without having Federal
judges, or standing armies, to protect them against themselves. Is it
not strange, that the people should have sense enough to pay their taxes
without being driven to it by superior force, and not have sense enough
to take care of themselves without this new Judiciary? They certainly
contrived to do this before the act establishing this Judiciary passed.

Another expression of his equally astonished me; he said, that on the
7th day of December, a spirit which had spread discord and destruction
in other countries, made its entry into this House. What! are we to be
told, because at the last election the people thought proper to change
some of their representatives, and to put out some of those who had
heretofore been in power, and to put others in power of different
opinions, that a destroying spirit entered into all the public
functionaries? For what, sir, are elections held, if it be not that the
people should change their representatives when they do not like them?
And are we to be told from the house-tops, that the only use of
elections is to promote, not public good, but public mischief? We are
also told, that this constitution was to be destroyed by the
all-devouring energies of its enemies. Who are its enemies? We are not,
nor do I think there are any in this House; but there are parties as
well in this House as out of doors, and no man wishes more sincerely
than I do, that they were amalgamated, that we might get rid of all
party gall, and free ourselves from improper reflections hereafter. But
by what energy is the constitution to be destroyed? The only energy
heretofore used, and which made the change so much complained of, was
the energy of election. Sir, I scarcely know what to say when I hear
such uncommon sentiments uttered from a head so correct and a heart so
pure; it is the effect of a passion of which he is unconscious. Again he
says, if you repeal this law, the rich will oppress the poor. Nothing
but too much law can any where put it in the power of the rich to
oppress the poor. Suppose you had no law at all, could the rich oppress
the poor? Could they get six, eight or ten per cent. for money from the
poor without law? If you destroy all law and government, can the few
oppress the many, or will the many oppress the few? But the passing the
bill will neither put it in the power of the rich to oppress the poor,
nor the poor to oppress the rich. There will then be law enough in the
country to prevent the one from oppressing the other. But while the
elective principle remains free, no great danger of lasting oppression
can be really apprehended; as long as this continues, the people will
know who to trust.

We have heard much about the judges, and the necessity of their
independence. I will state one fact, to show that they have power as
well as independence. Soon after the establishment of the Federal
Courts, they issued a writ--not being a professional man I shall not
undertake to give its name--to the Supreme Court of North Carolina,
directing a case then depending in the State court to be brought into
the Federal Court. The State Judges refused to obey the summons, and
laid the whole proceedings before the Legislature, who approved their
conduct, and, as well as I remember, unanimously; and this in that day
was not called disorganizing.

As so much has been said about the resolutions of North Carolina, I will
repeat again, that it is no uncommon thing for the Legislature to
express their opinion on great national subjects, and will ask my
colleagues whether they ever heard any complaint of the resolutions
about the Western land? And whether none of them in the Legislature
never voted for the resolutions about the western land, nor about
post-offices and post-roads? The Legislature surely had as much right to
give an opinion as the Chamber of Commerce of New York; but, put it upon
what footing you please, it is entitled to respect, as the uninfluenced
opinion of so many respectable individuals; and the Legislature never
intended nor wished that the recommendation to the representatives
should be binding on them at all events; and if I believed the bill to
be unconstitutional, I should not vote for it, but as I do not, I hope
the gentleman will pardon me for pursuing my own sentiments, and voting
for it. I hope no man will ascribe to me a disposition to produce
anarchy in my native country. Although poor myself, I feel as strong a
desire as any one on this floor for the preservation of good order and
good government.

It has been asked, by the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. BAYARD,) will
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) say, the assuming the State
debts was improper? I have no hesitation to say that it was done at an
improper time; and, in showing that it was, I hope I shall be pardoned
for travelling over topics that really have nothing to do with the
merits of the present question. That act is now done, and, by what I
say, it is not to be understood that I wish Congress should put their
hands upon it. It will be noticed that Congress are authorized to
establish post-offices and post-roads for the general and equal
dissemination of information throughout the United States; and is it not
known that no act was passed on that subject before the assumption of
the State debts, and that there was only one post-road which run near
the sea-coast? Of course, the people in the interior country had no
communication with those in the Government, nor had they any knowledge
of what was doing. But the rich speculator, who was on the spot, by
going into the country where the people were ignorant of what had been
done, purchased up their certificates--the only reward they had received
for their toil and wounds--at about one-tenth of their value. And it is
possible that many of these purchases may have been made with public
money. And it is clear to me, that if a proper number of post-roads had
been established, before the act was passed for assuming the State
debts, the war-worn soldier would not have lost half as much as he did
by the speculation on his certificates.

The gentleman from Delaware says we drove them to the direct tax. This
is the first time I ever heard of a minority driving a majority. Is such
a thing possible? Did we drive them to the measures that made such
immense expenditures of the public money necessary? No, sir, we opposed
those measures as useless; and the true ground of the direct tax is
this: the public money was expended; public credit was stretched, until,
to preserve it, it became necessary to provide for paying, and the means
adopted were the direct tax.

The same gentleman tells us there is nothing sacred in the eyes of
infidels. We know our opponents. The allusion here is too plain not to
be understood; and evidently is, that those who differ with him in
opinion are infidels. This is a strong expression; it would have seemed
that his love of Americans ought to have prevented the use of it. I
shall make no answer to it, except to remind him that in a book, the
truth of which he will not deny, he will find these words, "_Judge not,
lest ye be judged_." He also said that gentlemen might look to the
Executive for victims, and not to the judges. Notwithstanding this
remark, and without condemning or approving the appointments made by the
late President, I hope I may be permitted to express my own ideas,
without being considered as under the influence of the present
President. Prior to the fourth of last March, all, or nearly all, the
offices in the gift of the Executive, were in the hands of men of one
political opinion. On that day, the people changed the President,
because they did not like measures that had been pursued. But, to those
who have attended to the debates in this House, it must appear strange,
indeed, to hear gentlemen complain of the President having in office
those who agree with him in opinion, when we were formerly told that the
President would do wrong if he appointed to office those who differed
from him in political opinion; and whenever he had done it, he had had
cause to repent of it. Was that opinion then correct, and now false, in
the estimation of gentlemen? For my part, I did not think the opinion
correct when I first heard it, nor have I since been convinced of its
propriety. Indeed, before I can think so, I must have a worse opinion of
human nature than I now have, and think of men as they pretend to think
of us, which God forbid! But, taking things as they are, what course, on
this point, is most fair and tolerant? The community, as well as this
House, is divided into two parties. It seems to me, that all the most
tolerant could wish, would be an equal division of the offices between
the parties, and thus you might fix a reciprocal check on each other.
But I ask gentlemen to be candid, and tell me whether they are at this
time equally divided? Sir, they know that there are many more persons
who now fill offices who agree with them in opinion than agree with us.
As to myself, I care not who fill offices, provided they act honestly
and faithfully in them. I can with truth say, so little party attachment
have I on this head, that I never solicited to have any man discharged
from office. Knowing that a large majority of those now in office agree
with those gentlemen in political opinion, I am at a loss for the cause
of all this clamor. They have no doubt some reason for it, which has not
been declared. The fact is, they have a majority of the offices, and a
majority of the people are with us. I am contented it should be so.

The gentleman has dwelt much on a subject which, from my habits of life,
I am not enabled fully to notice; I must decide for myself, and, judging
with the small share of information I possess, I cannot agree with him.
I do not pretend to understand the subject as well as he does, but
certainly he was not so perspicuous as it might have been expected. I
mean, sir, his opinion on the common law. He told us that the judges
only adopted such parts of the common law of England as suited the
people, and that he apprehended no danger from this. Sir, I do apprehend
danger from this, because I cannot find any authority given them in the
constitution to do it, and I suppose it is not an inherent right.
Without pretending to know the extent of this common law, it has always
appeared to me to be extremely dangerous to the rights of the people,
for any person not elected by them, to undertake to exercise the power
of legislating for them, and this adopting the common law is only
another name for legislation. He has also told us, that the States had
adopted it. If the States adopted it, it became a law of the State, and
not of the United States; but the adoption of it by the individual
States, could not give the judges a right to adopt it for the United
States. The judges have no powers but what are given by the constitution
or by statute, and this power cannot be found in either. He even told
us, that the constitution was a dead letter without it. I do not believe
this was the opinion of the convention that formed it, and by an
examination of the debates of the State conventions that ratified it, it
will not be found to be their opinion; nor is it, I believe, the opinion
of all the Judges of the Supreme Court, that the constitution would be a
dead letter without the common law of England. I have understood, that
one of them has given it as his opinion, that the common law was not in
force in the United States. The gentleman told us, that the Sedition law
was constitutional, and that the judges had so determined. This we have
often been told before; but, in my opinion, the contrary is the fact. I
firmly believe there is no authority given in the constitution to pass
that law, and although the judges agree with him in opinion, I believe
the people agree with me. He, like my colleague, did not pretend to say
that the judges under the old system had too much business, but too much
riding. The whole burden of the song seems to be riding and salary,
salary and riding; you may destroy the office, but the officer must have
his salary, and this I suppose without riding. The old system was, in my
opinion, equal to every object of justice contemplated by its
establishment.

The gentleman has ascribed to us the wish to have the courts viciously
formed. Is it possible, that he can have so degrading an idea of the
American people, as to suppose they would send men here to legislate on
their dearest interests, so base and corrupt, as to wish their courts so
formed, that vice and not virtue should prevail in them? I am happy to
say that gentleman is the only one who has uttered a sentiment so
abhorrent to human nature. He also said, if you permit the State courts
to execute your laws, you would have no constitution in ten years. I
have not heard any one express a desire that you should have no courts,
or that the State courts should execute all your laws; but I do not
believe, that if the State courts were to execute your laws, that they
would destroy the constitution which they are sworn to support. He has
told us that we paid millions for an army which might be useless, and
refused thousands to a Judiciary which was useful. As to the army, those
who agree with me in sentiment, are as clear of it as it is possible for
men to be of any political sin whatever; we always considered them
useless, except in a small degree, and voted against them.

But, says he, this is the President's measure; he may prevent it. This
is indeed a bold assertion. Are a majority of this House so degraded, so
mean, so destitute of honor or morality, as to act at the nod of a
President? What the majority may hereafter do, I cannot tell; but I can
say, as yet they have done nothing which even the eye of criticism can
find fault with. But are we to infer from these charges, that it has
heretofore been the practice for the President to give the tone to the
majority of the House, and to wield them about as he pleased? I had,
before, a better opinion of our adversaries. I had thought, and still
think, that no man can wield a majority of this House; that the House
is, and has been, too independent for this; to think otherwise, would be
degrading to my country. Sir, I do not believe the gentleman from
Delaware himself, with all his talents, can wield those with whom he
generally votes, at his will and pleasure.

Much has been said about the manner in which the late law was passed,
and the purpose for which it was done. I hope I shall be pardoned for
saying nothing on this subject; enough, if not too much has already been
said on it; nor can I conceive that it has any thing to do with the
question.

The true question is, were there courts enough under the old system, to
do the business of the nation? In my opinion there were. We had no
complaints that suits multiplied, or that business was generally
delayed; and when gentlemen talk about Federal courts to do the business
of the people, they seem to forget that there are State courts, and that
the State courts have done, and will continue to do almost the whole
business of the people in every part of the Union; that but very few
suits can be brought into the Federal courts, compared with those that
may be brought into the State courts. They will be convinced that under
the old system, we had federal judges and courts enough; besides, sir, I
believe each State knows best what courts they need, and if they have
not enough, they have the power and can easily make more. I am sure the
old system answered every purpose for the State I live in as well as the
new.

He also told us, that we attempt to do indirectly what we cannot do
directly. I do not know of any such attempt. The bill is certainly a
direct attempt to repeal the act of the last session; but I have seen
things done indirectly which I believe could not have been done
directly; such was the army of volunteers; it surely was an indirect
attempt to officer and get possession of the militia. The same gentleman
challenges us to say there are any in the United States who prefer
monarchy. In answer to this, I say, there were such during the American
revolutionary war, and I have not heard that they had changed their
opinion; but as he has told us there were jacobins in the country, it is
not unfair to suppose there are monarchists; they being the two
extremes. We are also charged with a design to destroy the whole
Judiciary. If there is such a design, this is the first time I ever
heard it; no attempt of the kind is yet made. But what is the fact? We
only propose to repeal the act of the last session, and restore the
Judiciary exactly to what it was for twelve years, and this is called
destroying the Judiciary.

To complete the scene, we were told of the sword, of civil discord, and
of the sword of brother drawn against brother. Why such declamation? Why
do we hear of such things on this floor? It is for them to tell who use
the expressions; to me they are too horrid to think of. Do gentlemen
appeal to our fears, rather than to our understanding? Are we never to
be clear of these alarms? They have often been tried without producing
any effect. Every instrument of death is dragged into this question;
sword, bayonet, hatchet, and tomahawk; and then we are told that the
passing this bill may be attended with fatal consequences to the women
and children. Can it be possible, sir, that the gentleman was really
serious when he talked about an injury to women and children? He also
told us, if you pass the bill and it should produce a civil war, not
only himself but many enlightened citizens would support the judges. And
have we already come to this, that enlightened citizens have determined
on their side in case of a civil war, and that it is talked of in this
assembly with deliberation and coolness? We certainly were not sent here
to talk on such topics, but to take care of the affairs of the nation,
and prevent such evils. In fact, it is our duty to take care of the
nation, and not destroy it. Compare this with the conduct of the former
minority. I challenge them to show any thing like it in all their
proceedings. Whenever we supposed the constitution violated, did we talk
of civil war? No, sir; we depended on elections as the main corner-stone
of our safety; and supposed, whatever injury the State machine might
receive from a violation of the constitution, that at the next election
the people would elect those that would repair the injury, and set it
right again; and this, in my opinion, ought to be the doctrine of us
all; and when we differ about constitutional points, and the question
shall be decided against us, we ought to consider it a temporary evil,
remembering that the people possess the means of rectifying any error
that may be committed by us.

Is the idea of a separation of these States so light and trifling an
affair, as to be uttered with calmness in this deliberate assembly? At
the very idea I shudder, and it seems to me that every man ought to look
on such a scene with horror, and shrink from it with dismay. Yet some
gentlemen appear to be prepared for such an event, and have determined
on their sides in case it should happen. For my part, sir, I deplore
such an event too much to make up my mind on it until it shall really
happen, and then it must be done with great hesitation indeed. To my
imagination, the idea of disunion conveys the most painful sensations;
how much more painful then would be the reality! Who shall fix the
boundaries of these new empires, when the fatal separation shall take
place? Is it to be done with those cruel engines of death that we have
heard, of, the sword, the bayonet, and the more savage instruments of
tomahawk and hatchet? And is the arm of the brother to plunge them into
the breast of brother, and citizen to be put in battle array against
citizen, to make this separation which would ruin the whole country? And
why is all this to be done? Because we cannot all think alike on
political topics. As well might it be said, because we cannot all agree
in the tenets embraced by each particular sect of our holy religion,
because one is a Calvinist and another a Lutheran, that each should be
employed in plunging the dagger into the heart of the other. But
suppose, sir, you agree to divide these States, where is the boundary to
be? Is it to be a river, or a line of marked trees? Be it which it may,
both sides must be fortified, to keep the one from intruding on the
other; both the new governments will have regular soldiers to guard
their fortified places, and the people on both sides must be oppressed
with taxes to support these fortifications and soldiers. What would
become, in such a state of things, of the national debt, and all the
banks in the United States? If we do wrong by adopting measures which
the public good does not require, the injury cannot be very lasting;
because at the next election the people will let us stay at home, and
send others who will manage their common concerns more to their
satisfaction. And if we feel power and forget right, it is proper that
they should withdraw their confidence from us; but let us have no civil
war; instead of the arguments of bayonets, &c., let us rely on such as
are drawn from truth and reason.

Another topic has been introduced, which I very much regret; it is the
naming of persons who have received appointments from the late or the
present President. I hope I shall be pardoned for not following this
example. And one gentleman is named as having been an important member
during the election of President by the late House of Representatives.
It ought to be remembered there were others as important as the
gentleman named. In talking about the late or the present President, it
ought not to be forgotten that they both signed the Declaration of
Independence, that they have both been Ministers in Europe, and both
Presidents of the United States. Although they may differ in political
opinion, as many of us do, is that any reason we should attempt to
destroy their reputation? Is American character worth nothing, that we
should thus, in my judgment, improperly, attempt to destroy it on this
floor? The people of this country will remember that British gold could
not corrupt nor British power dismay these men. I have differed in
opinion with the former President, but no man ever heard me say, that he
was either corrupt or dishonest; and sooner than attempt to destroy the
fame of those worthies, to whose talents and exertions we owe our
independence, I would cease to be an American; nor will I undertake to
say that all who differ from me in opinion are disorganizers and
jacobins.


THURSDAY, February 25.

_Judiciary System._

The House then went into a committee on the bill, sent from the Senate,
entitled, "An act to repeal certain acts respecting the organization of
the courts of the United States, and for other purposes."

Mr. RUTLEDGE.--I beg leave, Mr. Chairman, to proffer my thanks to the
committee for the indulgence with which they favored me yesterday, and
at the same time to acknowledge the respect excited by the politeness of
the honorable gentleman from Maryland, who moved for its rising. In the
course of the observations I yesterday offered, I endeavored to show
that it was the intention of the Convention to make our judges
independent of both Executive and Legislative power; that this was the
acknowledged understanding of all the political writers of that time;
the belief of the State Conventions, and of the first Congress, when
they organized our Judicial system. If I have been successful in my
attempt to establish this position, and if (what I suppose cannot be
denied) it be true in jurisprudence, that whenever power is given
specially to any branch of Government, and the tenure by which it is to
be exercised be specially defined, that no other, by virtue of general
powers, can rightfully intrude into the trust; then I presume it must
follow of consequence, that the present intermeddling of Congress with
the Judicial Department is a downright usurpation, and that its effect
will be the concentration of all power in one body, which is the true
definition of despotism. As, sir, every thing depends upon the fair
construction which this article in the constitution respecting the
Judiciary is susceptible of, I must again read it. [Here Mr. R. read
several clauses of the constitution.] Some of the clauses we see are
directory and others prohibitory. Now, sir, I beg to be informed of what
avail are your prohibitory clauses, if there be no power to check
Congress and the President from doing what the constitution has
prohibited them from doing? Those prohibitory regulations were designed
for the safety of the State Governments, and the liberties of the
people. But establish what is this day the ministerial doctrine, and
your prohibitory clauses are no longer barriers against the ambition or
the will of the National Government; it becomes supreme and is without
control. In looking over those prohibitory clauses, as the
Representative of South Carolina, my eye turns with no inconsiderable
degree of jealousy and anxiety to the ninth section of the first
article, which declares--[Here Mr. R. read the article respecting
migration before the year 1808.]

I know this clause was meant to refer to the importation of Africans
only, but there are gentlemen who insist that it has a general
reference, and was designed to prohibit our inhibiting migration as well
from Europe as any where else. It is in the recollection of many
gentlemen who now hear me, that, in discussing the alien bill, this
clause in the constitution was shown to us, and we were told it was a
bar to the measure. And an honorable gentleman from Georgia, then a
member of this House, and now a senator of the United States, (and who
had been a member of the Convention,) told us very gravely he never
considered this prohibition as relating to the importation of slaves. I
call upon gentlemen from the Southern States to look well to this
business. If they persevere in frittering away the honest meaning of the
constitution by their forced implications, this clause is not worth a
rush--is a mere dead letter; and yet, without having it in the
constitution, I know the members from South Carolina would never have
signed this instrument, nor would the convention of that State have
adopted it. My friend from Delaware, standing on this vantage ground,
says to our opponents, Here I throw the gauntlet, and demand of you how
you will extricate yourselves from the dilemma in which you will be
placed, should Congress pass any such acts as are prohibited by the
constitution? The judges are sworn to obey the constitution, which
limits the powers of Congress, and says they shall not pass a bill of
attainder or _ex post facto_ law, they shall not tax articles exported
from any State, and has other prohibitory regulations. Well, sir,
suppose Congress should pass an _ex post facto_ law, or legislate upon
any other subject which is prohibited to them, where are the people of
this country to seek redress? Who are to decide between the constitution
and the acts of Congress? Who are to pronounce on the laws? Who will
declare whether they be unconstitutional? Gentlemen have not answered
this pertinent inquiry. Sir, they cannot answer it satisfactorily to the
people of this country. It is a source of much gratification to me to
know that my sentiments on this subject, as they relate to the
constitutionality of it, are in unison with the wisest and best men in
my native State. The Judicial system had proved so inconvenient there,
as to render a new organization of it necessary some years past. There
were gentlemen in the Legislature as anxious to send from the bench some
of the judges as gentlemen here are to dismiss our federal judges.
Personal animosities existed there as well as here, though not to so
great an extent; but it was the opinion of a large majority of the South
Carolina Legislature, that as the constitution declares, "the judges
shall hold their offices during good behavior," the office could not be
taken from them, the measure was abandoned, and the wise and cautious
course pursued, which we wish gentlemen here to follow: the system was
not abolished, but modified and extended; the judges had new duties
assigned to them, and their number was increased, but no judge was
deprived of his office. In South Carolina they have a court of chancery,
consisting of three chancellors, and the law establishing it requires
the presence of two judges to hold a court. During a recess of the
Legislature, one of the chancellors resigned and another died. The
functions of the court of consequence became suspended. All the business
pending in it was put to sleep. The public prints were immediately
filled with projects for destroying the court, which had been denounced
as unnecessary. As the citizens of the western part of the State had not
participated much in the benefits derived from the court of chancery,
many of the most influential of them deemed it of little utility. The
opposition assumed so formidable an aspect as to determine the Governor
(who exercises the power of appointing judges during the recess of the
Legislature) not to make any appointment, believing the court would be
abolished. When the Legislature met, an effort was made to abolish the
court, but a large majority giving to the constitution the honest
meaning of its framers, considered the judges as having a life estate in
their offices, provided they behaved well; and the vacancies on the
chancery bench were immediately supplied.

That the national Judiciary Establishment is comparatively more costly
than are the State Judiciaries, is far from being the case, I believe.
It may be so in Virginia, where they have one chancellor, with little
salary and much business, but it is not so in other States. In South
Carolina, we have six judges at common law, at six hundred pounds
sterling a year each; three chancellors at five hundred pounds each;
which, together with the salaries and fees of office of the attorney
general, master in chancery, solicitors, clerks, and sheriffs, amount to
six thousand two hundred pounds sterling. And yet, sir, justice, I
believe, is nowhere cheaper than in South Carolina. By the judicious
structure of her judiciary system, the streams of justice are diffused
over the whole State, and every man is completely protected in his life,
liberty, property, and reputation. The courts are almost constantly in
session. The judges are gentlemen of high talents, integrity, and strict
impartiality; and every one who goes into the court of that State, not
only obtains ample justice, but obtains it promptly; this, sir, is what
I call cheap justice. The gentleman from Virginia has seen fit to notice
the law which laid a direct tax, and said it was imposed when we knew
the Administration of this Government was soon to pass from those then
in power, and was resorted to as a means of extending Executive
patronage, and to make provision for the friends of an expiring
Administration. Can the honorable gentleman be serious in all this? Does
he remember when we passed this law? It was in 1798, when I will be bold
to say, the Administration enjoyed the highest degree of popular favor.
In no popular Government, perhaps, was an Administration more popular
than was the former Administration, at the time this tax was laid. Sir,
this law had no connection with personal or party considerations. Like
all the measures of the past Administration, it was designed to promote
the public good. Had we, like our opponents, consulted the caprices and
prejudices, and not the real interests of our constituents; had we been
merely attentive to popular favor, we should not have passed this law.
At the crisis it was passed, the public good demanded it, and we were
regardless of every other consideration. A nation that had lighted up
the flame of war in every corner of Europe, that was prostrating the
liberties of every free people, and subverting the Government of every
country, saw fit to menace us; told us for the preservation of our peace
and independence we must pay tribute. This degrading measure was
scornfully rejected by our Administration; they said, if we must fall,
we will fall after a struggle; and our citizens prepared themselves for
war with alacrity, and regarded every sacrifice as inconsiderable,
compared with the great sacrifice of our independence. With this
prospect of immediate war, we should have acted not only unwisely but
treacherously, had we trusted for public income to the revenue derived
from trade. Had our trade been destroyed, there would have been a
complete destitution of revenue, and to place the means of national
defence as far beyond the reach of contingency as possible we imposed
the direct tax. We knew this law would prove arms and ammunition to
those who were inventing all the falsehood credulity could swallow, and
who were busily employed in misrepresenting and calumniating the conduct
of the Government. We did suppose they might make this law their
artillery to batter down the Administration; but we were not deterred
from our honest purposes by this expectation; a change of men, when
compared with a change of government, weighed with our minds as dust
does in the balance; our measures did not aim at popularity, and we were
just to our country, regardless of party consequences. At this early
period, says the gentleman, it was to have been calculated what would be
the result of the Presidential election. Sir, those must have been
gifted with second sight, they must have been prophets indeed, who could
have then foretold how the election would issue; the result was as
doubtful as any event could be, till within a few days of the election.
It is recollected that every thing depended upon the South Carolina
vote; all the gentlemen in nomination went there with an equal number of
votes; the anxiety displayed at the time by the gentlemen here from
Virginia, proved they then deemed it doubtful how the election would
terminate. Indeed, sir, nothing could have been more doubtful, and I
believe it is fully known to the ministerial side of this House, that it
depended upon one of the gentlemen nominated, who had not the Carolina
votes, to have obtained them, and produced to the election a different
result; but his correct mind was obnoxious to any intrigue; it would not
descend to any compromise, and this honorable man knew that no station
could be honorable to him unless honorably obtained. In the very wide
range which the gentleman from Virginia has permitted himself to take,
he has been pleased to notice the conduct of the late Congress when they
were occupied in the election of the President of the United States, and
he has said we were then "pushing forward to immolate the constitution
of our country." What does all this mean, sir? What, sir! because we, of
the two gentlemen who had from the electors an equal number of votes,
did not prefer him who was from Virginia, are we to be charged with an
immolation of our constitution? Sir, the gentleman from Virginia was not
a member of the last Congress, and lest he should not know the history
of the transaction to which he alludes, I will give it.

The Electors chosen in the different States gave the same number of
votes for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr; there being a tie, it
devolved, by the direction of the constitution, upon the House of
Representatives to make an election. We sincerely believed that Mr. Burr
was the best and the most fit man to be President, and we accordingly
voted for him; we continued to vote for him six and thirty times; we
were anxious to have him elected, and we deprecated the election of the
other candidate; but when we found gentlemen were determined not to have
the candidate from New York, and said they would have him from Virginia
President, or they would have no President, we, who venerated our
constitution too sacredly to do any thing which should hazard the loss
of it, yielded. We believed Mr. Jefferson radically and on principle
hostile to the National constitution; we believed some of the most
important features in it obnoxious to him; we believed him desirous of
destroying the independence of our Judiciary; we believed him opposed to
the Senate as now organized, and we believed him destitute of that
degree of energy necessary to maintain the general liberty of the people
of the United States. With these impressions deep upon our minds, we
should have been traitors to our country had we voted for the gentleman
from Virginia, as long as there was any prospect left to us of elevating
the gentleman from New York; but when we found the object of our
preference was so obnoxious to gentlemen on the other side, that they
would hazard the having of no President rather than have him, we ceased
our opposition.[67] And this is what the honorable member from Virginia
has been pleased to call "pushing forward to immolate the constitution."

I regret, Mr. Chairman, being compelled to mention names and say any
thing of a personal nature, but I am obliged to do it in pursuing the
gentleman from Virginia, who in his extraordinary course has not only
mentioned the names of gentlemen, but ascribed unworthy motives for
their conduct. He has said Mr. Read and Mr. Green voted for the law
under which they got appointments. Although I have abundant proof that
neither of these gentlemen solicited their offices, that they were given
spontaneously, and without being expected, yet I will merely answer this
observation by mentioning what is very generally known to all gentlemen
who have been of late in the councils of the nation; it is, that it was
the invariable practice of the former Executive to appoint gentlemen to
office without previously advising with them. It is well known that
under the law gentlemen are now endeavoring to repeal, Mr. Jay was
appointed Chief Justice, and about the same time several gentlemen in
this House were appointed to some of the most honorable stations under
our Government; the Executive's intention, it is well known, had not
been previously notified to them; it is well known they all declined
accepting the places proffered to them. Permit me, sir, to give a brief
history of the case of Mr. Green, on which the gentleman from Virginia
has dwelt so much.

The district judge in Rhode Island was appointed circuit judge, and Mr.
Green was appointed district judge. On the fourth day of March, Mr.
Green took his seat in the Senate; the friends of the Administration
objected to his keeping it; they said he was a judge, as appeared by the
journals of the Senate; they here made a complete recognition of his
appointment as judge, and he vacated his seat. After getting home he
received his commission, in which the blanks had been filled up with the
words circuit judge, instead of district judge. Mr. Green enclosed his
commission to the Executive, in a letter most profoundly respectful, and
requested the errors of the clerk in the Department of State might be
corrected, and his commission made to conform to the appointment, as
recorded on the Senatorial journal. To this letter, which was in highly
respectful terms, the President would not deign to have any answer
given; he pocketed Mr. Green's commission, and placed another gentleman
in his office. This is a history of the appointment of Mr. Green, and
the manner in which the President "corrected the procedure."

Sir, the Judiciary is, in the fabric of the constitution, not a
Corinthian pillar, not any ornament added by Congress. It is, sir, the
grand Doric column; one of three foundation pillars, formed not by
Congress, but by the people themselves; it binds together the abutment,
is laid as the foundation of the late fabric of our Government, and if
you demolish it, the grand arch itself will totter and the whole be
endangered. We are asked by the gentleman from Virginia if the people
want judges to protect them? Yes, sir, in popular governments
constitutional checks are necessary for their preservation; the people
want to be protected against themselves; no man is so absurd as to
suppose the people collectedly will consent to the prostration of their
liberties; but if they be not shielded by some constitutional checks
they will suffer them to be destroyed; to be destroyed by demagogues,
who filch the confidence of the people by pretending to be their
friends; demagogues who, at the time they are soothing and cajoling the
people, with bland and captivating speeches, are forging chains for
them; demagogues who carry daggers in their hearts, and seductive smiles
in their hypocritical faces; who are dooming the people to despotism,
when they profess to be exclusively the friends of the people. Against
such designs and artifices were our constitutional checks made to
preserve the people of this country. Will gentlemen look back to the
histories of other countries, and then tell us the people here have
nothing to apprehend from themselves? Who, sir, proved fatal to the
liberties of Rome? The courtier of the people; one who professed to be
"the man of the people," who had willed his fortune to the people, and
had exposed his will to the public eye; a man who, when a Crown was
proffered to him, shrunk from the offer, and affectedly said, it did not
come from the people. It was Julius Cæsar who prostrated the liberties
of Rome; and yet Cæsar professed to be the friend of Rome, to be in fact
the people. Who was it, that, in England, destroyed the Representative
Government, and concentrated all its powers in his own hands? One who
styled himself the man of the people; who was plain, nay studiously
negligent in his dress; disdaining to call himself Mister, it was plain
unassuming Oliver; Oliver Cromwell, the friend of the people, the
protector of the Commonwealth. The gentleman from Virginia says he would
rather live under a despot than a Government where the judges are as
independent as we would wish them to be. Had I his propensities, I, like
him, would fold my arms and look with indifference at this attack upon
the constitution. It has been my fortune, Mr. Chairman, to have visited
countries governed by despots. Warned by the suffering of the people I
have seen there, I am zealous to avoid any thing which may establish a
despotism here. It is because I am a republican in principle and by
birth, and because I love a republican form of Government and none
other, that I wish to keep our constitution unchanged. Independent
judges, at the same time that they are useful to the people, are
harmless to them. The judges cannot impose taxes; they cannot raise
armies; they cannot equip fleets; they cannot enter into foreign
alliances: these are powers which are exercised without control by
despots; and as the gentleman from Virginia does not hold despots in
abhorrence, he and I can never agree in our opinions on Government.

Whether another honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has
derived all the service from his sling and his stone he had expected, or
whether he feels acquitted of his promise, and now thinks himself
capable of prostrating the Goliath of this House, armed cap-à-pie with
the constitution of his country, I cannot conjecture. Whether he has
discovered the skill and the prowess of David, or whether he is likened
to him only by the weapons he wars with, it is for the committee to
judge; for myself I must say, that his high promises had excited
expectations which in me have not been realized, and when the gentleman
sat down I was sorry to find my objections to the bill on your table
undiminished. I say sorry, for I can lay my hand upon my heart, and in
the fulness of sincerity declare, there is nothing I desire more
anxiously than to be convinced by gentlemen that this measure is not
unconstitutional.

The gentleman has asked whether, if we had created an army of judges,
and given them monstrous high salaries, it would not be right to repeal
the law; that if the power exists to repeal any law which might have
passed on this subject, it might not now be used? and has been pleased
to say, we would have created more judges and given them higher
salaries, if we had not wanted nerves; and tells my honorable and
learned friend from Delaware that we were restrained by the same
feebleness of nerve which induced us at the Presidential election to put
blank votes into the ballot box. Sir, my friend from Delaware does want
that sort of nerve that some gentlemen now discover. Although he is as
brave as he is wise, yet in living without fear he will live without
reproach, and never make himself liable to the charge of prostrating the
constitution of his country; for such a work it is true he has no nerve.
The observations of one honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES)
being now reiterated by another respecting the course of conduct we
pursued at the Presidential election, shows that time has not abated the
resentment of Virginia which we excited by our not voting for the
Virginia candidate. Permit me here to declare, sir, that in reviewing
all my public conduct, I can discover no one act of which I am more
satisfied than my having put a blank vote into the ballot-box. Much has
been said on this subject. My friend from Delaware and myself have been
denounced by the jacobins of the country; at their civic feasts, and in
their drunken frolics, we have been noticed. European renegadoes, who
have left their ears on the whipping posts of their respective
countries, or who have come to this country to save their ears, have
endeavored to hang out terrors to us in the public prints; nay, sir,
circular letters have been diffused through the country, charging us
with the intention of preventing at one time the election of a
President, and at another with the design of defeating the vote of the
Electors and making a President by law. This was all a calumny, and as
it relates to the South Carolina delegation, I declare they had no
intention of defeating the public will; they never heard of any project
for making a President by law; they had but one object in view which
they pursued steadily as long as there was any prospect of attaining it.
The gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from New York had an equal
number of votes; we preferred the latter; we voted for him more than
thirty times, but when we found our opponents would not unite with us,
and seemed obstinately determined to hazard the loss of the constitution
rather than join us, we ceased to vote; we told them we cannot vote with
you, but by ceasing to vote, by using blank votes, we will give effect
to your votes; we will not choose, but we will suffer you to choose.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, there was nothing in all this which had any
aspect towards defeating the public will. Why I did not prefer the
gentleman who ultimately was preferred, has already been mentioned. This
is a subject on which I did not expect to be called upon to explain; but
the gentlemen from Virginia have called, and it was necessary to answer.
Permit me to state, also, that besides the objections common to my
friend from Delaware and myself, there was a strong one which I felt
with peculiar force. It resulted from a firm belief that the gentleman
in question held opinions respecting a certain description of property
in my State, which, should they obtain generally, would endanger it, and
indeed lessen the value of every other.[68] Following the example set by
his colleague, the gentleman from Virginia has bestowed much censure on
the past Administration, and made it a serious charge against them,
having appointed under this law a gentleman of Maryland, who he says was
not with us formerly, but unfurled his standard in the service of his
King, and fought against his countrymen, whom he then deemed rebels. I
did not expect, Mr. Chairman, to hear this observation from one of the
friends of the Executive. Since the fourth of March last, I thought
philosophy had thrown her mantle over all that had passed; that sins
were to be forgotten and forgiven, and to prove the sincerity of this
forgiving spirit, sinners were to be distinguished by Executive favors.
One would have thought so in reviewing Executive conduct; where persons
had been imprisoned and fined under our laws, they we know were
released; where fines had actually been paid, the officers of Government
had been ordered to return them, and not only tories had been appointed
to office, but old tories, rank old tories, who had been banished. The
present collector of Philadelphia, for the internal revenue, has been
appointed since the fourth of March last, and although he never, like
the gentleman alluded to, shivered lances in the service of his King,
yet he was actively employed in the more safe service of giving
information to the British Generals, and marching before Sir William
Howe, decorated with laurels, conducted him into the metropolis of his
native State. Sir, there are many instances of this kind. Have gentlemen
forgotten the young Englishman who was so busily employed here last
winter during the Presidential election, that in seeing him one would
really have supposed him not only a member of this House, but, like him
of Tennessee, holding an entire vote at his command? This youngster was
sent out here by some merchants in England to collect debts due to them
in this country, and his father, whose tory principles carried him from
America early in the Revolution, is now subsisting on a royal pension;
and this young man has been appointed our Consul at London, and the
former consul, a native and stanch American, whose conduct had been
approved by merchants generally, has been turned out to create a
vacancy. The gentleman from Virginia has repeated the observation of his
colleague, that the people are capable of taking care of their own
rights, and do not want a corps of judges to protect them. Human nature
is the same every where, and man is precisely the same sort of being in
the New World that he is in the Old. The citizens of other Republics
were as wise and valiant and far more powerful than we are. The
gentleman from Virginia knows full well, that wherever the Roman
standard was unfurled, its motto, "_Senatus Populusque Romani_,"
proclaimed to a conquered world that they were governed by the Senate
and the people of Rome. But now, sir, the Roman lazzaroni, who crouching
at the gates of his Prince's palaces, begs the offals of his kitchen,
would never know that his ancestors had been free, nor that the people
had counted for any thing in Rome, or that Rome ever had her Senate; did
he not read it on the broken friezes and broken columns of the ruined
temples, whose fragments now lie scattered over the Roman forum!


TUESDAY, March 2.

Mr. DANA.--After this vindication of meritorious men who have been
removed from office, I will now attend more particularly to some
observations of the gentleman from Virginia. He has spoken of the
judicial act of the 13th of February, 1801, as if the passage of it had
been attended with improper circumstances, and thence has attempted to
deduce the inference that it ought to be repealed. He read part of the
journal of the last session, and charged certain members of the House
with having been engaged in opposing the public will at the time when
the act was approved. The journal shows, that on the 13th of February,
eighteen hundred and one, the representatives, voting by States,
proceeded to the twenty-ninth ballot for President, and the result was
the same as had taken place before; the votes of eight States given for
Thomas Jefferson; the votes of six States for Aaron Burr; and the votes
of two States divided. Much has been said on this topic, which has at
length been brought forward as a public charge by the gentleman from
Virginia. It is now time that it should be examined.

According to the principles of our Government, the public will, when
explicitly ascertained by an authentic act, is the law of the land, and
must be obeyed. Of this there can be no doubt; it is beyond all
question. But this public will is not merely the will of part of the
community, a section of the people; it is the will of the great body of
American citizens. The highest and most solemn expression of the public
will in this country is the Constitution of the United States. This was
agreed to by the General Convention; was transmitted to the
Legislatures of the several States by the unanimous resolution of
Congress under the Confederation; was recommended by all those
Legislatures, when they passed laws for submitting it to conventions for
their ratification, and was finally ratified by the conventions of all
the States in the Union. It was thus established by the general consent.
In this we should acknowledge the high authority of the public will.

There is, however, a misfortune which attends the argumentation of some
gentlemen. They substitute a part for the whole; and would confound the
will of a certain portion of the people, however vaguely expressed, with
the will of the whole public body as explicitly manifested by an
authentic act.

What manifestation was there of the public will relative to the late
election of a President of the United States? The only authentic
evidence of the public will on this subject proved, that Thomas
Jefferson, of Virginia, and Aaron Burr, of New York, were equally the
objects of approbation. The majority of the electors had given them an
equal number of votes. What then was the difference of right between
them? Was it, that one of the candidates was a Virginian? Was it that
the members of Congress were assembled on the banks of the Potomac, with
Virginia in view on the other side? Must it be acknowledged as the
prerogative of that State to impose a Chief Magistrate on the Union? Or
was there a difference of right, because Virginia, with its extent and
population, could make more clamor than any other State? The noise of so
great a State may sometimes seem loud enough for the voice of the people
of the United States. And are they, therefore, in this House to be
confounded with each other? If so, the observations about the public
will, of which we have lately heard so much from a certain quarter, must
be understood to mean the will of Virginia; and we may thus judge of the
argumentation when gentlemen from that State are speaking of the respect
due to the public will.

Two persons were presented, in constitutional form, to the House of
Representatives, as being equally candidates for the office of
President: one from Virginia and the other from New York. When they were
so presented, the choice between the two candidates was devolved on the
Representatives, by the Constitution of the United States. After
maturely considering the question, it was for them, as ultimate
electors, to vote as they judged to be most for the public welfare. They
voted by States, as required by the constitution. And are gentlemen to
be here accused for exercising the constitutional right of election
according to the conviction of their own judgments? When called upon,
under the constitution, to elect one of the two candidates, were they
not bound, by the nature of their duty, to give their votes according as
the one or the other was by them judged to be more or less preferable?
Upon what principle can gentlemen be accused of hostility to the
interest of the people, because they did not think proper to elect the
candidate from Virginia? Are our affairs already reduced to such a
situation that it is to be charged as a public offence, if any member of
this House has failed to vote for a Virginian to be the President of the
United States?

It was the constitutional right of members of this House, in deciding
between the two candidates, to give their ballots for the one whom they
believed to be superior in practical capacity for administering the
Government--one whom they believed to be not hostile to the commercial
interests of the country, and not disposed to subject the Union to the
domination of a particular State, whatever might be its lordly
pretensions in consequence of extent of territory or antiquity of
dominion.

As the gentleman from Virginia has thought proper to speak of events
which took place about the time of passing the act in question, allow
me, sir, to mention one circumstance, of which he has said nothing. The
act, as finally enrolled, was signed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives after the balloting for a President had commenced; and
the Clerk carried it to the other House for the signature of their
President. The candidate from Virginia was then in the chair of the
Senate. The Clerk of this House, on first presenting himself, as was
customary, at the door of the Senate Chamber, was not admitted. The
situation came to the knowledge of a Senator, and was communicated to
the Senate. After the sense of that body was found to be for his
admission, the door was opened, and the Clerk was admitted to deliver
his message, and present the enrolled bill for signature. It was then
signed by the President of the Senate.

What should be thought of this, as taken in connection with the fate of
the act and pendency of the Presidential election? Was it a circumstance
which must ever be remembered with mortification, and which therefore
will never be forgiven?

To give a further color to the suggestion that the passage of the act
was attended with improper circumstances, the attempt has been made to
impress an idea that it was adopted without mature deliberation, and
hurried through its different stages in a reprehensible manner. If we
are not willing to be misled by pretext, let us examine what was the
fact.

A recurrence to the journals of the House will prove that the subject of
the Judicial Establishment was recommended by the President of the
United States to the attention of Congress at two successive sessions.
In his communication at the opening of the first session of the sixth
Congress, he recommended the subject in the following terms:

      "To give due effect to the civil administration of
      Government, and to ensure a just execution of the laws, a
      revision and amendment of the Judiciary system is
      indispensably necessary. In this extensive country it
      cannot but happen that numerous questions respecting the
      interpretation of the laws and the rights and duties of
      officers and citizens must arise. On the one hand, the laws
      should be executed; on the other, individuals should be
      guarded from oppression. Neither of these objects is
      sufficiently assured under the present organization of the
      Judicial Department. I therefore earnestly recommend the
      subject to your serious consideration."

In the House of Representatives, this part of the President's Speech was
referred to a select committee. They reported a bill which contained a
variety of provisions for amending the system. The bill was referred to
a Committee of the Whole, in which it was discussed several days, and
was afterwards recommitted to the same gentlemen who had reported it. As
it was printed for the use of the members, and the subject was
extensively interesting to the community, it was judged proper to defer
a final decision until another session, and in the mean time gentlemen
might have an opportunity to acquire information that would assist them
to form a more satisfactory judgment.

At the second session of the sixth Congress, the subject was again
recommended by the President. These are his words:

      "It is, in every point of view, of such primary importance
      to carry the laws into prompt and faithful execution, and
      to render that part of the administration of justice which
      the constitution and laws devolve on the Federal courts, as
      convenient to the people as may consist with their present
      circumstances, that I cannot omit once more to recommend to
      your serious consideration the Judiciary system of the
      United States. No subject is more interesting than this to
      the public happiness; and to none can those improvements
      which may have been suggested by experience be more
      beneficially applied."

On this recommendation a select committee was appointed. That committee
reported a bill to provide for the more convenient organization of the
courts of the United States. The bill underwent a long discussion and a
variety of amendments. It was finally passed in the House of
Representatives by a majority of 51 to 43; and in the Senate by a
majority of 16 to 11. After knowing these facts, will gentlemen have the
hardihood to call this a hasty measure?

Compare the whole proceedings with what took place respecting a former
act. Gentlemen have spoken of the general power of Congress to repeal
acts passed by their predecessors. Are they prepared to repeal the act
to which I now refer? It is the act relative to the temporary and
permanent seat of Government, passed in July, 1790. That act was carried
in the Senate by a majority of 14 to 12. In the House of
Representatives, a Committee of the Whole agreed to it as it came from
the Senate. Twelve different amendments were proposed in the House; the
yeas and nays were taken on each of them, and every amendment was
rejected--all in one day. A motion was then made for the third reading
of the bill on the Monday following; the motion was negatived. It was
moved that the third reading should be on the next day; this was
negatived. The yeas and nays were taken twelve times during the sitting.
A motion was made to adjourn; this was negatived. The general rule of
the House being against reading a bill twice on the same day without
special order, a motion for then reading the bill the third time was
made on the part of its advocates, and carried. On taking the yeas and
nays, for the thirteenth time in one day, the bill passed by a majority
of 32 to 29. Mark the smallness of the majority in both Houses; the
utter rejection of every amendment in the House of Representatives; the
hurried manner in which it was forced on to the final question.
Recollect other considerations relative to the passage of that act, and
then judge whether it was not attended with circumstances signally
improper. If matters of this kind constitute a sufficient cause for
gentlemen to repeal any act passed by their predecessors, why should we
remain here in pursuance of this act? Will any gentleman say it is for
our personal convenience that the seat of Government is now at this
place? Is it at present for the public convenience? Is it less expensive
for individuals, or for the public, than it would be in some of your
commercial cities? Have you here the opportunities for valuable
information which might be had elsewhere? What, then, should detain us,
if it be not a regard to stability and consistency in public
proceedings, combined with a regard to the expectations of respectable
persons seriously interested in the question? But if you may repeal the
act organizing the Judicial system, what principle is there that ought
to confine the Government to the place in which we are now assembled?
Repeal this act, as is proposed by the bill on your table, and you shake
the principle of public stability and consistency. Repeal this act, and
there can be no principle of constitutional obligation, none of
political honor, or legal right, to detain you here.


WEDNESDAY, March 3.

Mr. LOWNDES moved that the further consideration of the bill be
postponed until the first Monday in December next; on which a debate of
considerable length ensued; when, the question being taken thereupon, it
passed in the negative--yeas 32, nays 59.

And, after debate thereon, the main question was taken that the said
bill do pass, and resolved in the affirmative--yeas 59, nays 32, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
      Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Richard Brent, Robert Brown,
      William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew
      Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, Thomas T.
      Davis, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph,
      Ebenezer Elmer, John Fowler, William B. Giles, Edwin Gray,
      Andrew Gregg, Joseph Heister, William Helms, Wm. Hoge,
      James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Charles
      Johnson, William Jones, Michael Leib, John Milledge, Samuel
      L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas
      Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jun.,
      John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of
      Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard,
      Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jun., John Stewart, John
      Taliaferro, jun., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram
      Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness,
      Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel
      W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, William Eustis, Abiel
      Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry
      Grove, Seth Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson,
      William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R.
      Morris, Joseph Pierce, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John
      Rutledge, John Stanley, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney,
      Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van
      Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Benjamin Walker, Lemuel
      Williams, and Henry Woods.


FRIDAY, March 5.

_State Balances._

Mr. THOMAS, from the committee appointed to inquire into the expediency
of extinguishing the claims of the United States, for certain balances,
which, by the Commissioners appointed to settle the accounts between the
United States and the individual States, were reported to be due from
several of the States to the United States, made a report, as follows:

      That the following balances were, by the said
      Commissioners, reported to be due from the States
      hereinafter mentioned, to wit: From the State of New York,
      two millions seventy-four thousand eight hundred and
      forty-six dollars; from the State of Pennsylvania,
      seventy-six thousand seven hundred and nine dollars; from
      the State of Delaware, six hundred and twelve thousand four
      hundred and twenty-eight dollars; from the State of
      Maryland, one hundred and fifty-one thousand six hundred
      and forty dollars; from the State of Virginia, one hundred
      thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine dollars; and from
      the State of North Carolina, five hundred and one thousand
      and eighty-two dollars.

      That, as none of these States has evinced a disposition to
      pay any part of those balances, except the State of New
      York, which has been credited on the books of the Treasury
      for two hundred and twenty-two thousand eight hundred and
      ten dollars and six cents, for money expended in erecting
      fortifications, pursuant to an act of Congress, passed the
      5th of February, 1799; but as it would be unequal to ask a
      further payment from that State exclusively, and as it does
      not appear that any measure of coercion can ever be
      resorted to, a further continuance of the demands against
      those States, the justice and equity of which they do not
      admit, will, in the opinion of the committee, answer no
      useful purpose; but, on the contrary, is calculated to
      occasion perpetual irritation and disquiet, as well to the
      creditor as to the debtor States.

      The committee are, therefore, of opinion, that it is
      expedient to extinguish the claims of the United States for
      those balances, and for that purpose report a bill, which
      is herewith submitted.

The report was laid on the table. The bill was twice read, and
committed to a Committee of the whole House on Wednesday next.


WEDNESDAY, March 10.

An engrossed bill for revising and amending the acts concerning
Naturalization was read the third time, and on the question that the
same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 59, nays 27, as
follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
      Bailey, James A. Bayard, Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude,
      Robert Brown, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas
      Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Thomas
      T. Davis, John Dawson, John Dennis, William Dickson, Lucas
      Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, John Fowler,
      Wm. B. Giles, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove, Joseph
      Heister, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, William Hoge,
      James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, William Jones,
      Michael Leib, John Milledge, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas
      Moore, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John
      Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) John
      Smith, (of Virginia,) Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard
      Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, David Thomas,
      Thomas Tillinghast, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Philip
      Van Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac
      Van Horne, Robert Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John
      Davenport, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold,
      Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger,
      Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas
      Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John C. Smith, Josiah
      Smith, John Stanley, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney,
      George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg
      Wadsworth, Benjamin Walker, and Lemuel Williams.


THURSDAY, March 11.

_Wyoming Controversy._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the
committee to whom was referred the petition of sundry inhabitants of the
State of Pennsylvania, settled on the lands claimed under grants from
the State of Connecticut, antecedent to the trial before the court of
commissioners between the State of Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

The report of the committee embraces an historical view of the Wyoming
controversy, recites the act of Pennsylvania, for preventing intrusions
upon land in Northampton, Northumberland, and Luzerne Counties. The
report then proceeds to state:

      "The petitioners complain of these acts as
      unconstitutional, and pray that provisions may be made by
      law for transferring the proceedings under these laws from
      the State Courts of Pennsylvania to the Courts of the
      United States; and that further provision may be made by
      law, that in the trial of any prosecution in virtue of the
      said acts the defendant may have a _venire facias_ to
      summon juries from some State, other than Pennsylvania.
      Your committee conceive that the right of jurisdiction was
      finally settled by the decree of Trenton, of the 30th
      December, 1783, and that by the decision of the circuit
      court for the district of Pennsylvania in April, 1795, the
      whole question of the right of soil was fully taken up and
      decided by the court, in a case the most favorable for the
      defendant; which decision not having been revised and
      reversed, should also be considered as final and
      conclusive.

      "Your committee therefore, upon the whole circumstances of
      the case, are of opinion, that the measures contemplated by
      the petitioners would tend very much to increase the
      embarrassments already experienced by the State of
      Pennsylvania, in extending and enforcing its lawful
      jurisdiction over the lands in question, and that it would
      be highly inexpedient on the part of the United States to
      interfere with the regulations of the States in that
      respect, or to countenance, by any means whatever, any
      circumstances of insubordination to the State authority.

      "Your committee are therefore of opinion that the prayer of
      the petitioners ought not to be granted."

After a debate, the committee rose and reported their agreement to the
report.

A motion was made and lost to recommit the report to a select committee.

It was then moved to postpone the further consideration of the report
till the last day of November next. Not carried.

The question was then taken on concurring with the Committee of the
Whole in their report, by yeas and nays, and agreed to--yeas 60, nays
17.

And so the petition was rejected.


FRIDAY, March 12.

The House being informed that NARSWORTHY HUNTER, the Delegate from the
Mississippi Territory, in this House, died last evening:

On motion, it was

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to take order for
superintending the funeral of NARSWORTHY HUNTER, late a Delegate from
the Mississippi Territory; and that this House will attend the same.

_Resolved_, That the members testify their respect for the memory of the
said NARSWORTHY HUNTER, by wearing a crape on the left arm, for one
month.

_Resolved_, That the SPEAKER of this House address a letter to the
Governor of the Mississippi Territory, to inform him of the death of
NARSWORTHY HUNTER, the Delegate from the said Territory in this House,
in order that measures may be taken to supply the vacancy occasioned
thereby.

_Ordered_, That Mr. LEIB, Mr. DAVIS, Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. RUTLEDGE, and Mr.
LEWIS R. MORRIS, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the first
resolution.

_State Balances._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to
extinguish the claims of the United States for balances reported against
certain States by Commissioners appointed to settle the accounts
between the United States and the individual States.

Mr. THOMAS.--Mr. Chairman, I rise, with a great deal of diffidence, to
deliver my sentiments on this floor, as I have not been accustomed to
public speaking; however, a sense of my duty as a Representative of the
United States, as well as the immediate Representative from the State of
New York, impels me, on this occasion, to ask the indulgence of the
Committee while I make a few remarks on the subject of the bill now
under consideration.

Sir, a number of the debtor States, and particularly the one which I
have the honor to represent, have always believed that they were
prodigiously injured in the settlement that was made; they have always
believed that there was something radically wrong, grossly unequal, in
the accounts exhibited by the individual States, and allowed by the
Board of Commissioners; in this belief, they have frequently called for
information on the subject, for a re-examination of that settlement, and
have as often been denied it.

Much might be said to prove that the very economical system adopted and
adhered to by the State of New York in limiting the prices of produce,
and in liquidating the accounts of her citizens for supplies furnished
during the Revolutionary war, operated particularly prejudicial to that
State in the settlement. I shall, however, waive any remarks on this for
the present, and confine myself principally to the rule which was
adopted for apportioning the expenses of the war among the several
States. Sir, the committee will recollect that by an act of Congress
passed in the year 1789, the enumeration of inhabitants made in the year
1791 was adopted as the rule for apportioning this debt among the
thirteen States.

I shall in the first place examine the original contract entered into by
these States, and under which these expenses were incurred, and then
endeavor to show the effect which, adopting an enumeration made seven or
eight years after the close of the war, had upon the several States
different from what the same rule would have produced had the
apportionment been made according to the numbers in each State at that
period, say 1784.

In the year 1778, the people of these States entered into a
confederation for various purposes, one of which was, to prosecute the
war against Great Britain. In the eighth article of this compact it was
expressly agreed that--

      "All charges of the war, and all other expenses that should
      be incurred for the common defence, and general welfare,
      and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled,
      should be defrayed out of a common treasury, which should
      be supplied by the several States in proportion to the
      value of all lands within each State granted to or surveyed
      for any person as such lands and the building and
      improvements thereon should be estimated, according to such
      mode as the United States in Congress assembled, should
      from time to time direct and appoint."

This, Mr. Chairman, was the agreement under which this debt was
incurred; and here allow me to ask the honorable gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) whether he was correct when he told us the
other day that this settlement had been made agreeably to the articles
of Confederation; and, further, whether, agreeably to that compact, the
State which he represents would have been allowed for her losses in the
Penobscot expedition, which has enabled her to become a creditor State
of upwards of one million two hundred thousand dollars, and more than
one-third of the whole amount of the balances. Sir, had the original
agreement under which these expenses were incurred been adhered to in
the settlement, no one ought now to complain; but, in order to comply
with it, the expenses of the war ought to have been apportioned among
the several States according to the value of the lands and buildings at
the time these expenses were incurred, and I do contend that the period
immediately after the termination of the war was the only proper one for
carrying into effect this stipulation. I am persuaded that no gentleman
on this floor will deny that the existing circumstances of the several
States at that period were the most proper to determine the just
proportion which each State ought to pay of these expenses, by whatever
rule might be adopted. Admitting, then, that Congress had the power, and
it was judged expedient to deviate from the original contract, and adopt
as the rule of apportionment the enumeration of inhabitants as a more
practicable one, ought it not to have had reference to the numbers in
each State at the close of the war? Most unquestionably, Mr. Chairman,
no gentleman will deny this, and that the year 1784 was the proper time.
It may, however, be said that no enumeration was made till the year
1791, seven years afterwards. I grant it. But will this alter the
justness of my position? Not at all. It must be obvious in the mind of
every gentleman who has reflected on the subject, that the relative
numbers in each State had changed materially between the year 1784, when
this settlement ought to have been made, and the year 1791, when it was
made. In order to establish this fact, I have adopted this method; I
have admitted what I believe every gentleman who hears me will, without
hesitation: that there has been no material variation in the increase of
population in the several States since the year 1784; that the increase
was nearly, if not correctly, in the same ratio between the years 1784
and 1791, with the increase between the years 1791 and 1801; that is,
that the relative increase of population in the several States was
nearly, if not correctly, in the same proportion for the seven years
previous to the year 1791 that it was for the ten years subsequent to
that period.

This I have established as my data, by which I have ascertained the
numbers in each State in the year 1784, and having apportioned the
whole debt among the several States, according to the enumeration, I
find the following to be the result:

That the State of Massachusetts, instead of being a creditor of
$1,248,801, she would have been a creditor for only $863,267; that the
State of Connecticut, instead of being a creditor State of $619,121, she
would have been a debtor State for $235,419; that the State of Rhode
Island, instead of being a creditor State for $299,611, she would have
been a debtor State for $13,212; that the State of New Jersey, instead
of being a creditor for $49,030, she would have been a debtor State for
$300,201; that the State of New York, instead of being a debtor State
for $2,074,846, she would have been a creditor State for $965,921, &c.

This, Mr. Chairman, would have been the situation of these States had
the apportionment been made according to the numbers in each State in
the year 1784. As for the accuracy of this statement I think I can with
safety pledge myself; it is, however, open for any gentleman who will
give himself the trouble to examine it for himself. The principles on
which it has been made cannot be disputed, as it respects the State of
New York; if any thing, it does not make enough in her favor, for it is
evident that the emigration into that State from the neighboring States
was greater for the first seven years after the close of the war than it
has been for any subsequent seven years.

Will, then, Mr. Chairman, any gentleman hesitate a moment to pronounce
the rule of apportionment which was adopted unjust, unequal, and
erroneous? Will any gentleman say, sir, that the rule of apportionment
was a just one, or as just as the nature of the case would admit of,
which brought the State of New York in debt upwards of two
millions--two-thirds of the whole amount of the balances--when, on the
principles of righteousness, on the principles of legal contract, or any
other principles, but an unauthorized act of Congress, that State would
have been a creditor State for nearly a million?

Mr. Chairman, I admit, as the settlement has been made, and the creditor
States have received their balances, that it would be improper now to
take up this subject _de novo_, and endeavor to compel those States to
refund what they have received more than they were entitled to; this is
not expected--it is not asked; all that is asked of you is, that you
render such justice to those injured States as the present situation of
this transaction will admit of; this is all that is contemplated in the
bill now before us.

Sir, as to the present situation of the State of New York with respect
to this subject, she has not acknowledged the justice of this claim, as
was stated by some gentlemen when this question was under consideration
the other day; she has uniformly denied it. It is true she did comply
with the act of Congress passed in February, 1799, and has expended and
been credited on the books of your Treasury for $223,810 under that
act; she did this, not from a conviction of the justice of the claim,
but from motives which have always actuated her conduct, as well during
the Revolutionary war as since, to do every thing in her power for the
general welfare of the nation, whenever its exigencies required it, and
also from an expectation that the other States called debtor States
would do the same, and thereby get rid of an evil which she considers as
having a tendency to alienate the good will and cordial affection so
necessary to be cherished between these States--a cause, sir, which has
and will, while it is suffered to exist, occasion perpetual irritation
and disquiet, as well to the creditor as to the debtor States, and which
may at some future period produce consequences more fatal.

I say, sir, these were her motives in agreeing to that measure; and did
she not evince a magnanimous spirit by doing it? a willingness to suffer
an additional injury herself, rather than not remove a cause which might
put in jeopardy the peace and harmony of these United States? But, Mr.
Chairman, as it can answer no useful purpose to have the remainder of
the money expended in the manner directed by the act--and this I am
warranted in stating to the committee, not only as my own opinion, but
as the opinion of the gentleman who was employed under Government as an
agent or commissioner to superintend the expenditure already made--as no
other State has evinced a disposition to extinguish these balances by
paying any part of them, or by complying with any of the terms
heretofore offered by Congress; and as it must be admitted on all hands
that Congress have no power to effect it by eviction, I ask gentlemen if
it would be just or reasonable that the State of New York, who has been
injured more in the settlement than any other State in the Union; who
has already paid upwards of $220,000 towards these balances, and who is
the only State that has, or in all probability ever will, pay a cent
towards them--I say, I ask gentlemen of the committee whether it would
be just that that State should now be driven to one of two alternatives;
either to draw near a million of dollars from her citizens and expend it
where it will answer no useful purpose to the State nor to the nation,
or to withhold any further appropriations, and thereby incur the
imputation of having violated her faith? I call upon gentlemen seriously
to consider whether it would not be prodigiously unjust to hold that
State in this predicament; whether it would not be adding injury to
injustice to do it?

Mr. Chairman, I do flatter myself that the representatives of this
nation, convened here to legislate on fair and equitable principles,
will not suffer a new wound to be inflicted on that State, but that they
will unite with one accord in passing the bill now before us, and
thereby not only heal the one already made on that, as well as several
of her sister States, but remove a rock which may endanger our Federal
ship.

The bill was supported by Messrs. RANDOLPH, VAN RENSSELAER, HILL, VAN
NESS, GREGG, BAYARD, SMILIE, MACON, S. SMITH, CLAIBORNE, and
HOLLAND--and opposed by Messrs. ELMER, BACON, EUSTIS, HASTINGS, and
BUTLER.

The question was then taken on the committee rising, and reporting the
bill without amendment, and carried--yeas 47, nays 33.

A motion was then made that the bill be engrossed for a third reading on
Tuesday, and carried--yeas 47, nays 35.

A motion was then made by Mr. LEIB to recommit the report of the select
committee on which the above bill was founded, in order to correct an
erroneous statement in relation to Pennsylvania.


MONDAY, March 15.

_French Spoliations._

Mr. GRISWOLD said, that he hoped the resolution which he had laid on the
table for indemnifying for French spoliations would be first taken up.
It was important, before a decision was made on the repeal of the
internal taxes, that the extent of indemnities made by Government should
be known. He therefore moved a postponement of the bill on internal
taxes till to-morrow, that, in the mean time, his motion might be acted
upon. He concluded by desiring the yeas and nays.

The motion of Mr. GRISWOLD is as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That it is proper to make provision by law
      towards indemnifying the merchants of the United States for
      losses sustained by them from French spoliations, the
      claims for which losses have been renounced by the final
      ratification of the Convention with France, as published by
      proclamation of the President of the United States."

Mr. LOWNDES observed, that it was nearly two months since the committee
was raised, to whom had been committed the petitions of merchants
praying indemnities; notwithstanding this length of time, the committee
had not yet met. He hoped this resolution would induce the committee to
meet.

Mr. S. SMITH said, that he had presented the first petition on the
subject of French spoliations, and that it had been immediately referred
to a select committee, who, though they had made progress in the
business committed to them, had not considered it fair to decide until
all the petitions expected on the subject had been received. One indeed
had been presented only this morning. Mr. S. asked if this mode was not
perfectly just and fair? For himself, on this subject, he was precluded
from voting, as he was deeply interested in the decision of the House.
He mentioned this circumstance that the reason might be understood why
particular gentlemen from different parts of the Union did not vote on
this question in its several stages.

Mr. LOWNDES said he did not consider the right of deciding the principle
delegated to the select committee. That must be decided in the House.
It was the duty of the committee barely to make arrangements to protect
the House from imposition on the score of facts. If it shall be
determined by the Government, that it is improper to make
compensation--though he thought such a decision scarcely possible--the
select committee may be discharged. If, on the other hand, it is thought
proper to compensate, the committee may go into the investigation of
details.

Mr. MITCHILL felt it an obligation, that the case of those whom he had
the honor to represent, and that of the other merchants in the United
States, should be taken up and receive from this House the most
deliberate and serious consideration. He had before submitted to the
House his ideas on the proper course to be pursued, which it was not
necessary for him to repeat. He would, however, observe, that the
resolution now made was so broad as entirely to defeat its object. The
first reference of this business was to a select committee instructed to
examine all the papers and documents in relation to it, with an
instruction to report their opinion to the House; on receiving which the
House might be able to come to a decision. On the other hand, the
present proposition goes to commit the House on the whole extent of the
subject without any examination whatever.

Mr. M. said, he would suggest a few reasons, which satisfied his mind
that a decision should not be too rapidly pressed. The vessels taken by
the French admitted of various classifications. One class consisted of
those that were captured before the dissolution of our treaty with
France; another class, of those which were captured after that event;
another class, of those that were captured by picaroons without
commissions; and another class, where captures were made on account of
contraband goods. All these classes involved distinct considerations;
and when the subject was presented to the House in a form so
complicated, was it proper precipitately to decide a principle that
might bind the Government to make indemnity for all cases whatever?

Mr. M. said he had no doubt but that such property of the citizens of
the United States as came fairly under the character of spoliated
property, would be considered as a fit subject of indemnity. He was one
of those who thought that in such cases payment ought to be made. He
considered the merchants as a very important class of citizens, and that
their interests ought to be protected. This he thought the more
necessary from the consideration of the bill on the table, which, when
passed, will render the Government very dependent on mercantile credit.

Mr. M. was of opinion that the best way of accomplishing the object of
the merchants was not to precipitate the subject. On the other hand, he
was of opinion that the best chance of success would arise from an
examination of the various classes of spoliations, from separating them
from each other, thereby enabling the House to act understandingly upon
them. The resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut was so vague as
not to be susceptible of any distinct meaning. He hoped, therefore, the
subject would be suffered to undergo a full and deliberate investigation
in the select committee, which he, as a member of that committee,
assured the House was progressing as fast as a sense of justice and a
regard to our merchants require.

Mr. DANA.--The object of the present motion is to take up the resolution
of my colleague, and to take order upon it--not to decide definitely
upon it. This being the true question, I hope the gentleman from New
York will not think it improper in me to say that many of his remarks do
not apply to it. As the question is not whether we shall immediately
decide the point, but only place it in a train for decision, it must be
discussed either in a Committee of the Whole, or in a select committee;
and we ask the House now to decide which, that it may be progressing
towards a final decision.

The resolution states a general principle. If it is the fixed
determination of the majority, without an inquiry, not to grant any
relief whatever, there is an end of the business. But if you agree to
grant any relief, the resolution ought to be adopted. The principle is
then established of indemnifying; after which you may discriminate.

The principle on which the resolution is founded is not that Government
has declined to insist upon the claims of its citizens against the
French; but that it has undertaken to abandon their claims, so that no
citizen can now come forward with his claim either against the French
Government or any citizen of France. For this is the construction of the
treaty as finally ratified by the Government. It is a complete surrender
and renunciation of all demands. Among the first claims of our citizens
are some of private right, which were it not for the treaty, could be
recovered in the courts of France, but which the treaty bars. This
constitutes a class of claims which the Government cannot refuse to
indemnify. There are other descriptions of claims which might require
discrimination; in some of which the degree of compensation should be
varied, and others in which there should be no compensation whatever. I
think, therefore, it is proper for the Government to say the business
shall be attended to; at some future time an inquiry may be made into
the nature of the various claims. This is all we ask.

Mr. GRISWOLD said that the gentleman from New York had misapprehended
the order of proceeding in that House. He supposes the present
resolution so vaguely worded as to be improper to be passed. But, if
taken up, that very gentleman may offer any amendment he pleases. I do,
however, apprehend that it is so worded as to bring the subject fairly
before the House. It is worded even with caution. Its sole object is to
bring the principle of indemnity before the House, unfettered, that its
decision might not be embarrassed by any details; supposing there would
be an indisposition in the House to pledge the nation to an unlimited
extent, the words used are, "towards indemnifying." Gentlemen,
therefore, who are disposed to do any thing, can feel no objection to a
resolution so qualified. Other parts of the resolution are worded with
equal caution, so as to extend only to cases where losses are renounced
by treaty. Are gentlemen unwilling to indemnify for such losses?

This is a principle proper for decision in Committee of the Whole. Why
take it to a select committee? It involves no details; it requires the
elucidation of no facts. We know the losses of our merchants, and we
know the treaty has renounced them. The House is, therefore, prepared to
say whether it will or will not indemnify. When the principle is
decided, it may be sent to a select committee to settle the details. I
hope that it will be taken up, and an early day fixed for consideration.

The gentleman says the committee are progressing. It may be so. Though I
observe the gentleman from South Carolina says the committee has not yet
met. How progressing? Without meeting? I do not understand this new
mode, though I will not say that it is not a very correct mode. The
gentleman further says the committee have not progressed because they
wished to have first all the petitions before them; but the principle to
be settled is as much involved in one petition as in all.

Mr. GREGG said he should not have risen but for the remarks of the
gentleman from South Carolina, and after him those of the gentleman from
Connecticut, who had stated that the committee had not met. Being a
member of the committee he would inform those gentlemen that the
committee had met; that they had perused a number of the papers, and had
determined that it was improper to proceed until they had received
documents that would show the extent of the claims.

As the business now stands, we find it referred to a select committee,
instructed to examine the papers, and report their opinion thereupon.
This report will form the grounds of decision for the House. Now the
gentleman would wrest the business from the committee, and urge the
House into a decision without any of the necessary information. The
attempt was unprecedented. Mr. G. said he never knew a similar instance
where the select committee had not been previously discharged.

Mr. LOWNDES rose to explain. He said that when he informed the House
that the committee had never been called together, he had been induced
to say so, from never having been himself notified, though a member of
the committee.

Mr. BAYARD thought the motion ought to prevail for the reason assigned
by the honorable gentleman from Connecticut. He has properly remarked
that we are not now called on to decide the abstract question, but only
to say what course of proceeding shall be pursued. The point ought now
to be decided whether the business shall be sent to a select committee,
or to a Committee of the Whole. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says it
is altogether unprecedented to take a subject out of the hands of a
select committee. But this will not be the effect of the resolution;
which will only facilitate the business before the committee, and shed
additional light on the path they ought to pursue. We do not wish to
interfere with the operations of the committee, but to decide a question
that will greatly facilitate their proceedings, and which question ought
to be settled in a Committee of the Whole. It is peculiarly and
strikingly proper to postpone the question of repealing the internal
taxes until a decision shall have been made on these claims. Not that we
are anxious to decide upon them immediately, but because we are
solicitous not to prejudge all claims to indemnity by repealing the very
taxes on which the indemnity must depend. Do gentlemen mean to decide at
once thus precipitately against all indemnity whatever? If they are not
in favor of so deciding, surely they will not be for immediately
deciding on the internal taxes.

Let the gentleman from New York classify the claims as he pleases, can
he tell the extent of the demands? May they not amount to five million
or ten million of dollars? And if to either sum, can we with propriety
dispense with the internal taxes? It appears from the report of the
Secretary of the Treasury that the whole of the revenue for the year
1803 and 1804 will be wanted. If, then, these claims shall be allowed,
and shall produce an increase of the public debt, the fund derived from
the internal revenue will be required.

It is cruel to decide at once against the claims of our merchants. If it
is predetermined not to give them relief, at least allow them the
consolation of a hearing. Whoever votes for now taking up the question
of the repeal of the internal taxes, votes, not only against
indemnifying, but also against hearing the merchants; because he votes
away all means of indemnification. It is hard, peculiarly hard, that at
the moment when you are about to throw the whole burdens of the
Government upon the merchants, you should deny them a hearing, an
impartial hearing, of their claims. Suppose there should be a
combination of these men, seeing the Government act towards them with
such flagrant injustice, to refuse all importations. I ask, if you do
not, by such treatment, put the Government entirely into their hands?

If gentlemen will agree to postpone the question of internal taxes, we
will agree to postpone this question, if they are not prepared to decide
upon it. The subject of the internal taxes is the least pressing of all
the subjects before the House. The bill, indeed, ought not to pass until
we know the appropriations that are necessary to be made for the present
year. Have gentlemen shown, can they show, that with propriety these
taxes can be dispensed with from any retrenchments that can be made in
our expenditures? I do not know any official document on this point,
except that of the Secretary of War, who, in his very correct report,
says there will be a saving in his department of a little more or less
than $500,000; which report I confess I do not understand. The Committee
of Ways and Means say there will be a retrenchment in the War Department
of a sum not exceeding $400,000; which mode of expression I do not
precisely comprehend. Surely we ought to know with precision the sums
that will be required for the objects of the Government before we
abandon our resources.

Mr. EUSTIS thought the object of indemnity to our merchants very
important both in its nature and its consequences. And, first, as to its
amount, it was known to be great. The consequence of these applications
will be a hearing, and procedure thereon. And the amount of the claims,
as well as the nature of them, ought to have great influence on the
deliberations of the House. And yet we talk of deciding the abstract
question, when the very facts on which we are to decide are not before
us. For it will be perceived by the public prints that the claims of the
merchants of the State of Massachusetts are not yet brought forward. The
necessary evidence is not before the House. I appeal to the gentlemen to
know how we are to act, understandingly, if the subject be taken up now.
What is the abstract question? Will gentlemen say they will pay all
demands before they know any thing of their nature or amount?

The claims of our merchants are very serious, and merit great
consideration. But the revenue, which gentlemen are so anxious to
retain, to them will be but as the light dust in the balance. I presume
that the losses of the merchants of Massachusetts alone are not less
than five to ten millions of dollars. But to act understandingly upon
them we must have evidence as well of their amount as their nature, both
of which we at present want.

Mr. RUTLEDGE.--I am sorry the resolution of my honorable friend from
Connecticut is not acceptable to the gentleman from New York. It is not
the least indelicate to that committee. On the contrary, were I a member
of that committee, I should feel infinitely gratified by it. I would ask
solicitously, whether it were possible that Congress would agree to this
principle before the details were gone into. We are now for giving that
information to the committee.

The honorable gentleman says this resolution conveys no light. But I
will say, that, if adopted, it will confer not only light, but comfort
to our merchants. It will foster their hopes, and animate them to meet
the difficulties under which they are staggering.

The gentleman from Massachusetts says there is no evidence of fact. What
fact? Surely he will not say there is no evidence of the French having
condemned our vessels, and of their having committed vast spoliation.
If this were so, how happens it that an American embassy had demanded
compensation; and that, on the ulterior negotiations of the Government,
the Government had said we will abandon it, that we may release
ourselves from guaranteeing to France her colonial possessions. Had this
not been so, France might have called upon us to guarantee her West
India possessions, and to supply her with men and money. From this
situation we have been kept by those negotiations which terminated in an
abandonment of the just Claims of your merchants on the French
Government or her citizens. And this constitutes your good bargains.

If these are facts, we possess sufficient evidence not only to justify,
but to compel our paying the merchants, if under the influence of common
honesty. The amount is perfectly immaterial. Whatever it is we must pay
it. It is true that of the millions claimed, Government may not in law
or equity be compelled to pay more than a small part. But if you
establish the principle that there shall be an indemnity made, you
enable your committee to devise the mode of collecting evidences of and
settling the validity of the claims.

But the gentleman from Massachusetts says these taxes, right or wrong,
must be repealed. For, he says, the public expectation has already
decided the question; and that, indeed, the public officers could not
now collect them. But I hope, for the honor of the Government, and of
the American people, this opinion is not correct.

Mr. MITCHILL begged to be indulged in making a few observations on what
had fallen from the gentleman from South Carolina. I do not know that
these observations will satisfy his mind, but they will at least serve
to justify my own character as a Representative of a portion of the
Union respectable for its mercantile opulence. I believe the subject of
indemnities, in the contemplation of gentlemen, has swelled much beyond
its real magnitude. _I believe that a large portion of losses were so
covered by insurance that Government will not be obliged to pay for
them._ I feel as sincerely for the merchants as any gentleman; yet I do
not wish to swell the subject to an improper magnitude. Suppose, as the
gentlemen wish, we say we will indemnify, does that pay the claims?

Besides, it is not so evident, as some gentlemen assert, that our
merchants have been deprived of valuable rights by the mode in which the
French Convention has been ratified. Let gentlemen recollect the mass of
depredations committed by Great Britain, and the engagements, under
treaty, of the British Government to make reparation for them. Yet,
notwithstanding this engagement, reparation has been to this day evaded,
under the pretext that the claims under one article depend on the
construction given to a preceding article. Now, suppose in the French
Treaty there were the same provisions as in the British Treaty, would
this have produced payment? No. The operations under the treaty might
have gone on as long as under the British Treaty, with the like effect,
and without any substantial provision being made. I state these
circumstances barely to show that the renunciation in the French Treaty
is not so grievous as some gentlemen imagine.

It is manifest that an inattention to similar claims has been considered
as less a departure from right among nations than among individuals.
And, judging of the future by the past, my opinion is that a retention
of the article stricken out of the French Convention, would not have
benefited the claims of our merchants, or afforded them any adequate
eventual compensation. In France, as on the other side of the Channel,
there would have been claim raised against claim, pretext against
pretext, and the boards for adjusting the several claims might have
been, in this case, as in the other, dissolved.

It is said by the gentleman from Delaware, that it is the object of
gentlemen on his side of the House to prevent a repeal of the internal
taxes. Though I admire the gentleman's candor, I believe it is needful
to repeal these laws. I believe, too, the people wish them repealed. But
I further believe, that if future events shall show the necessity of
restoring these taxes, the good sense of the people will restore them;
and if the indemnities agreed to be made shall require them, I believe
they will be restored. The work of examining these claims will be the
work of years. What is the consequence? Will the present repeal of the
internal taxes interfere with the doing substantial justice to our
merchants? Suppose these taxes are removed, are not the products of the
country increasing? and are not our resources increasing with our
population? The truth is, whenever your Treasury wants a fresh supply of
resources, the people will submit to what their Representatives desire.
Are we to legislate for succeeding ages? No. We are to suffer our
successors to act for themselves; and I have no doubt either of their
ability or their inclination to do justice.

Mr. DANA.--If I understood the honorable member from New York, he
admitted the propriety of making some indemnity; and if so, I could not
understand why he dwelt so elaborately upon the minutiæ of detail, to
show why we ought not to indemnify. Nor can I yet understand him, unless
his object be to let the subject sleep, and to say that the longer it is
delayed, the less chance of reparation.

The gentleman says, property _insured_ cannot be recovered. But is that
gentleman, coming as he does from the first commercial city in the
Union, yet to learn that, in the case of loss, the _insurer_ stands
precisely in the place of the _insured_? Is he so ignorant of this fact
as not to know that the underwriter, in such circumstances, becomes
entitled to the same indemnity with him who is underwritten?

With regard to the analogy attempted between the British Treaty and the
French Convention, it is totally incorrect. For, in the British Treaty,
we had insisted upon the claims of our merchants to reparation by
Britain, or her subjects; whereas, in the French Convention, we had
renounced all claim. Nor were the remarks of the honorable member more
fortunate respecting the operations under the British Treaty; for he
must know that our merchants have, in many cases, received compensation
under it.

One concession has been made which I did not expect would be avowed so
early, either by the gentleman from Massachusetts or the gentleman from
New York; a confession that is founded on the principle that the House,
before examining the important details which ought to regulate their
decision, are so placed by the head of the Executive ministry, that
certain taxes, recommended to be abrogated, must be repealed. You must
repeal them. The public clamor is excited, and you must obey it. I did
not suppose it would so soon have been avowed that we are under the
absolute rule of Executive influence, and that, to obey it, we are
compelled to perjure our understandings.

Mr. BAYARD.--The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has thanked me
for the candor of my avowal that I am opposed to the repeal of these
taxes. But I do not wish to be thanked for more than I really said. It
is true, that I do not think this the proper time to repeal all of those
taxes, because I do not know that Government may not want them.

The gentleman from Massachusetts has broached a new species of ethics.
He says, if the amount of claims shall be small, we may pay, but if
large we cannot. But I will tell that gentleman I have never
acknowledged such a principle of morality. I believe if the merchants
have a just demand for one dollar, we must pay it; and if they have a
just demand for one hundred millions, we must pay that too. Nor can I
too forcibly express my astonishment at an opposite principle avowed by
this House.

The gentleman says you want evidence, and therefore ought not to act.
But can you examine each distinct case? If the subject goes to a select
committee, and they shall be allowed years to decide, still they will
have to establish some principle; for instance, that a certain
description of vessels was captured unjustly by the French; that the
injured merchants had a moral claim on the French Government for
reparation; that the United States had bartered away their rights, and
that Government, in consequence, is bound to indemnify. If the House
decide that the Government is bound to relieve in one case, are they not
bound to afford relief in all similar cases? Will you not, then, be
obliged to make a general provision that all claims, so circumstanced,
shall be allowed? Here is a great mass of claims; some made now, and
some not likely to be made for years. What more, then, can you do, than
decide the principle which shall be applied to them?

My opinion as to indemnity is, that whoever had a valid claim against
the French Government, which the United States extinguished, has a
demand against the United States, which she must satisfy. Put the case
to its consequence: Will gentlemen tell me whether, according to any
principle of morality, where you have taken from your citizens all
chance of recovery, you are not bound to indemnify for that of which you
have deprived them? Where the French Government was not bound to pay
before the convention, you are not now bound to pay. So, in the case of
war, you are not bound. But where the claim on the French Government was
perfect, and you destroyed that claim, your obligation to pay cannot be
evaded. I wish to know if the establishment of this principle requires
facts?

With respect to the circumstances of particular cases, this House cannot
act. On those numerous grades of credibility that will be attached to
the various claims that shall be made, you cannot decide. To effect this
you must establish some competent tribunal. You can establish the
principle; but the details could not be settled by Congress, even if
their attention were exclusively directed to that subject, in three
years. Having decided the principle, it will be proper to leave the
application of it to your courts of law.

Mr. BACON hoped that a great deal of time would not be spent in
exploring the secret motives of individual members. He supposed they
should all stand or fall on their own consciences. He hoped, therefore,
they should have the question.

Mr. S. SMITH.--I am against the proposition of the gentleman from
Connecticut, because to act now upon it will be in direct opposition to
the uniform order of the House. If our attention is thus to be withdrawn
from every important object before us, I do not know how we are possibly
to progress with the public business. I know of no case, where a
particular subject has been referred to a select committee, and it has
afterward been taken up in the House, while it remained with the
committee. I should have understood the motion, if it had been to
discharge the select committee, and to refer the subject to a Committee
of the Whole.

As gentlemen, however, have taken so wide a range in the field of
debate, I hope their course will produce a saving of time, and that we
shall not have their speeches over again on repealing the internal
taxes.

It is not my purpose, at this time, to enter into a discussion of the
claims of our merchants, because I think this is not the proper
occasion. But I will tell gentlemen, that if they were disposed to
destroy those claims, they could not have pursued a plan more
effectually calculated to do it. Had such been my intention, I would
have offered a resolution so broad and vague as to alarm the whole
community as to the amount of indemnity. I would have endeavored to
throw the censure attached to their losses on the present
Administration. I would have opposed their claims to the wish of the
nation to repeal the internal taxes. All these steps I would have taken
to frustrate any indemnity; and they are just the steps taken by
gentlemen who profess so strong a regard for the merchants. Let me tell
those gentlemen until they shall pursue a far different plan, we must
doubt whether they are in earnest to pay the merchants for their losses.

If the public business is to be thus perpetually procrastinated, I hope
the gentlemen with whom I act will be firm enough, after rejecting this
motion, to pursue the other business even to a late hour.

The yeas and nays were then taken on Mr. GRISWOLD'S motion, to postpone
taking up the bill on internal taxes till to-morrow, in order to take up
his resolution on French spoliations; and decided in the negative--yeas
33, nays 54.


TUESDAY, March 16.

_State Balances._

The bill for extinguishing State balances was read a third time, when
Mr. DAVIS moved its postponement to the first Monday in November.

This motion was supported by Messrs. DAVIS, BACON, ELMER, and GODDARD,
who declared themselves adverse to the passage of the bill; and opposed
by Messrs. BAYARD, T. MORRIS, RANDOLPH, and NICHOLAS, who declared
themselves in favor of the bill.

Mr. GRISWOLD delivered his sentiments against the postponement,
declaring, however, his determination to vote against the passage of the
bill.

The question of postponement was taken by yeas and nays, and
carried--yeas 48, nays 42.


WEDNESDAY, March 24.

A new member, to wit, WALTER BOWIE, from the State of Maryland, returned
to serve in this House as a member for the said State, in the room of
Richard Sprigg, who has resigned his seat, appeared, produced his
credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.


MONDAY, March 29.

An engrossed bill, making a partial appropriation for the support of
Government, during the year 1802, was read the third time and passed.

Previous to its passage, conversation took place respecting an alleged
looseness of appropriation. This objection was made by Mr. GRISWOLD, and
supported by Mr. DANA, who were of opinion that the sum in the bill
should be more specifically appropriated.

The objection was repelled by Messrs. MILLEDGE, GILES, ELMENDORPH,
RANDOLPH, and ALSTON, who contended that the objection did not apply,
and that no inconvenience could arise from a partial appropriation made
in the bill and contemplated for a definitive object.

A motion made to recommit the bill was lost; when the bill passed--yeas
45.


TUESDAY, March 30.

_Funeral Expenses of Members._

On a motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following
resolution:

      _Resolved_, That, in case of the death of a member of the
      House of Representatives at the seat of Government, while
      Congress is in session, the expenses accruing, in
      conformity to an order of the House, made to testify their
      respect for the deceased member, shall be paid out of the
      contingent funds of the House, and not out of his wages for
      travelling home, as is now allowed by law:

_Ordered_, That the said motion be referred to Mr. DAVIS, Mr. LEWIS R.
MORRIS, and Mr. NICHOLSON, to consider and report thereon to the House.


WEDNESDAY, March 31.

_Funeral Expenses of Members._

Mr. DAVIS, from the committee to whom was yesterday referred a motion
respecting "members of this House dying at the seat of Government during
a session, of Congress," made a report thereon; which was read and
considered: Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That the expenses accruing by order of the House, in
attending the funeral of NARSWORTHY HUNTER, a member from the
Mississippi Territory, be paid out of the contingent funds of the House.

_Resolved_, That the legal representatives of a member of this House,
who shall die at the seat of Government during the session, shall be
entitled to receive the same allowance for his itinerant expenses, as
the member would have been entitled to, had he returned to his place of
abode.

_Ohio State Government._

The House went again into Committee of the Whole on the report of a
select committee respecting the admission of the North-western Territory
as a State into the Union.

The second resolution being under consideration,

Mr. FEARING referred to the provisions of the ordinance empowering
Congress to divide the Territory, from which he inferred that Congress
had not the right to divide the Territory so as to form one part of it
into a State, while the remaining section was not made a State, without
the consent of the Territory; he conceived that Congress must, in such
event, form this section also into a State. He, therefore, was of
opinion that Congress must consult the people of the Territory before
they shall divide the Territory.

As to the expediency of the resolution, he thought it very expedient to
make the division therein marked out. The effect of it would be that the
whole of Lake Erie would be thrown out of the State to be formed, and
the inconvenience to the section of the Territory not incorporated in
the new State would be very great, if it should be attached to the
Indiana Territory, from its great distance, which he understood was
contemplated.

Mr. GILES said that the committee who reported these resolutions, so far
from entertaining a disposition to change the ordinance, had strictly
observed the conditions therein prescribed. [Mr. G. here quoted the
ordinance.] It appeared therefrom that Congress was under an obligation,
after laying off one State, to form the remainder into a State. But
when? Hereafter, whenever they shall think it expedient to do so.

Mr. BAYARD agreed that there was no obligation imposed upon Congress to
decide definitively the boundary of a State. If the ultimate right of
Congress, after the formation of a new State, to alter the boundary be
doubted, they have a right to remove all doubts by so declaring at this
time. It is certain that at present great inconvenience would arise from
drawing the boundary as fixed in the resolution.

The population of the Territory does not amount to that which is
sufficient to give it admission into the Union. He had, however, no
disposition to oppose its admission, notwithstanding this circumstance.
The population in the Eastern State does not exceed forty-five thousand.
We are now about to pare off five or six thousand inhabitants, which
will bring it down to thirty-nine thousand. A population of forty-five
thousand is quite small enough for an independent State. It is a smaller
population than exists in any of the present States in the Union. From
this consideration, it might have been expected that Congress would take
no step whose effect would be a diminution of that population.

The division, as made in the resolution, is manifestly unjust, as far as
it relates to the people north of the dividing line. By it they are
about to be severed from their connection with the other portion of the
Territory. Mr. B. wished to know to whom they are to be attached? If
attached to the Indiana Territory, the inhabitants, to arrive at the
seat of Government, will be obliged to go across the new State, a
distance of two or three hundred miles. Besides, after having advanced
them to the second grade of territorial government, you will consign
them back again to the first, and thereby give them a system of
government extremely odious, and which we ought to get rid of as soon as
possible. Thus, after having held out to them the flattering prospect of
being elevated to the high rank of a State, you degrade them, contrary
to their expectations, to the humblest condition in the Union. Mr. B.,
therefore, thought it would be most just and politic to include this
population of five or six thousand in the bounds of the new State,
subject to the reserved right of Congress to alter the boundary
hereafter.

Mr. GILES said he was not tenacious of his opinions; but it was
necessary to justify the contents of the report by stating some
considerations that might not be generally known to the members of the
House.

Mr. G. said he supposed the section of the Territory, not embraced in
the new State, would be attached to the Indiana Territory; nor would any
great hardship result from this disposition; and such as did result
would arise from their local situation and not from any circumstances
over which the National Legislature had a controlling power. He believed
that people, to reach the seat of Government, had as far to go now as
they will then have. His object was to reserve in future to Congress the
right of determining the boundary of the States in the Territory. If
this section should once be admitted, he believed it would be very
difficult, however proper, to detach it from the State to which it had
become attached.

The report contemplates the forming a constitution. Should the people on
the northwardly side of the line be admitted as a part of the State,
they will participate in the formation of the constitution--a
constitution which will not be ultimately for themselves, but after a
short time exclusively for others. This participation would be unjust.
The question then is, whether you will suffer those to form a
constitution who are not to be permanently affected by it; and whether,
if you once constitute a State, you will be able hereafter to alter its
boundaries? For if this section be now admitted, gentlemen, by looking
at the map, will see that the boundary now fixed cannot be permanent.

As to the remarks made by the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. G. said he
was extremely glad that gentleman was for giving to the Territory the
right of a State. If, however, he had attended to the report, he would
have found that his calculation of numbers was incorrect. The population
of five thousand had been deducted by the committee, and after that
deduction forty-five thousand remained. Though the numbers in the
Territory proposed to be formed into a State amounted, a year ago, to no
more than forty thousand, yet it might be stated upon strong ground,
that, before the new government can get into operation, there will be a
sufficient population to demand admission as a matter of right. By
attaching the inhabitants on the north of the line to the Indiana
Territory, they will remain in the same grade of government they now
are, and not be degraded, as stated by the gentleman from Delaware, to a
lower state. This disposition appeared to Mr. G. the best that could be
made. But if, when gentlemen came to the details of the bill, it should
be thought best to introduce into the new State the population north of
the line, he said he might have no objection.

Mr. FEARING stated the great inconveniences that would be felt by the
inhabitants north of the line, if attached to the Indiana Territory. He
considered the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES,)
respecting the participation of this description of citizens in forming
a constitution for others, as entitled to little weight. Such a measure
was by no means uncommon. It had been done in the case of Kentucky, and
other States.

Mr. F. conceived that the people of the Territory had all equal rights
under the ordinance; they had been virtually promised that they should
not be attached to any other Western Territory, and Congress had only
reserved to themselves the right of admitting them into the Union as
States. More they could not do, without their consent.

Mr. BAYARD moved to strike out of the resolution the words that fix the
boundary, for the purpose of introducing words that should prescribe
that the new State be circumscribed by the original boundaries of the
Eastern State, referring to Congress the right of making one or more
States in said State at any future time.

Mr. GILES said that the State, as formed in the report, was one of the
most compact and convenient in the Union. The amendment would materially
change its character. Besides, it would in fact impair the right of
Congress to accommodate the boundaries to future circumstances. It was
well known, and sensibly felt, that there were many inconvenient
boundaries to several of the States now in the Union; yet so great was
the difficulty attending their alteration, that they could not be
changed.

Mr. BAYARD was not so sensible of the difficulty of altering the
boundaries as the gentleman from Virginia, who had stated that Congress
would not have power to alter them when once fixed. This difficulty
might exist as to the States now in the Union, because Congress had not
the constitutional power to alter them without the consent of the
adjacent States. But if this power be referred to Congress, which will
be a disinterested tribunal, there will be no difficulty in varying the
boundaries as circumstances shall dictate.

Mr. B. asked, if, while gentlemen are attending to the interests and
wishes of one part of the people, they are disposed to disregard the
interests and wishes of another part? If they were not, they ought to
admit the section, proposed by the resolution to be cut off, to a
participation in State rights.

Mr. BACON objected to the amendment. He said that Congress were vested
by the constitution with certain powers which they cannot increase, or
diminish, or delegate. By the constitution likewise, the several States
are vested with certain powers which they cannot increase, diminish, or
divest themselves of. By the third section of the fourth article of the
constitution, "new States may be admitted by the Congress into the
Union." This act proposes to make this Territory a State with State
powers under the constitution. How, then, can these people, once a
State, divest themselves of these powers. This is a question that does
not interest simply the State proposed to be formed, but every State in
the Union. All are equally interested in preserving the powers vested in
them by the constitution.

Mr. BAYARD said he did not see any occasion for striking out the
proviso. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) goes on the
principle that Congress has only a right to admit, without any
reservation. Mr. B. said he had always believed the greater included the
smaller. If you are vested with the greater power of admitting, you have
certainly the minor powers included in the greater power. From the
nature of the ordinance, it constitutes the fundamental principle on
which the States are admitted--they are not admitted under the
constitution. They are to be admitted exclusively under the provision of
the ordinance. You may, therefore, say that you will not now exercise
the whole power committed to you, but reserve the right of exercising it
hereafter.

Mr. SMILIE did not consider the principle laid down by the gentleman
from Delaware as constitutional. We must be governed by the
constitution. If the Territory be admitted as a State into the Union,
when admitted it must be bound down by the constitution, which says the
boundaries of States shall not be altered but with the express
permission of the State.

Mr. GILES--The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. GRISWOLD,) affects
lately to have discovered a great deal of disguise in the proceedings of
this House. What disguise? What were the committee to do? This country
is placed in a certain peculiar situation. We have waters running to the
East--then to the West; and the committee thought it was desirable to
connect these by good roads. With the committee, State principles or
interests had no influence--they were governed entirely by general
principles and the common interest.

The gentleman has also insinuated that the Secretary of the Treasury
holds lands that will be benefited by these roads. It may be so. Mr. G.
had not inquired; but he supposed he did not hold all the lands.
Congress may lay out these roads as they please. He could foresee how
Congress would lay them out, and it is a million to one that they will
not touch his lands.

The United States are about making a new contract. These propositions
are made as additional securities for the national property. The
Secretary of the Treasury having estimated the annual product of these
lands at four hundred thousand dollars, Mr. G. said, as chairman of the
committee, he had applied to him to know his opinion of the manner in
which this sum could be best secured, and he gave his opinion that this
provision would be most likely to effect that object. This is all the
mystery and disguise attending the resolution.

Mr. SMILIE said when gentlemen charge particular States with injustice,
they ought to be prepared to prove what they advance. If there had been
any co-operation between the delegations of Virginia and Pennsylvania on
this occasion, he had never heard of it. The fact was, that no peculiar
good could result to Pennsylvania from this measure. The great object
was to keep up that intercourse which will attach the people of the
Territory to you. When the Territory shall become a State, she will have
a right to tax your lands. This benefit, together with the salt-springs,
as I understand, is proposed as a substitution far the relinquishment of
those rights.

Mr. FEARING said he considered a part of the rights of the Territory
given up by this resolution; and though the Territory would be highly
benefited by the projected roads, and the cession of the salt-springs,
yet he conceived they would be much more benefited by laying out the
roads within the Territory.

Mr. GRISWOLD said he was glad the honorable gentleman from Virginia had
assured the House there was no disguise in this business. If the object
be to make an advantageous contract with the Territory to secure our
Western lands, let us offer them five per cent. of the proceeds of those
lands, to be paid into their treasury. If they shall be disposed to make
roads through Pennsylvania and Virginia, he should have no objection.

He was as sensible as the gentleman from Virginia, that whatever
improves a part of the Union improves the whole; though this was
undoubtedly the case, he was not of opinion that a sum of money should
be taken from the public treasury, and specially applied to local
purposes. Under this resolution, according to the calculation of the
Secretary of the Treasury, forty thousand dollars was the smallest sum
that would be annually applied to the laying out of those roads. Mr. G.
said he thought the sum too large to be withdrawn from the national
treasury, and directed to local objects.

The allusion of the gentlemen to light-houses raised on the Connecticut
shore does not apply. There was but one light-house in Connecticut,
ordered to be built by this House, for which the _enormous_ sum of
twenty-five hundred dollars had been appropriated. Yet this solitary
measure had been rejected by the Senate. This is the great boon given to
Connecticut!

For these reasons Mr. G. hoped the article would be stricken out, and
that, if it was necessary to make terms with the new State, they might
receive five per cent. on the receipts of the land, to be paid into
their own treasury, disposable by themselves as they saw fit.

Messrs. R. WILLIAMS, JACKSON, and HOLLAND, said a few words in favor of
retaining the article; when the question was taken on striking it out,
and lost--yeas 17.

Mr. FEARING, wishing that half the proceeds of the Western lands should
be laid out on roads within the Territory, made a motion to that effect;
lost--yeas 25.

The report of the select committee, without further amendment, was then
agreed to, and a bill ordered in conformity thereto.


WEDNESDAY, April 7.

An engrossed bill for the relief of Thomas K. Jones was read the third
time, and passed.

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State,
accompanying his report on the memorial of Fulwar Skipwith, referred to
him by order of the House on the nineteenth of January last; which were
read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the whole House on
Friday next.

Mr. JOHN C. SMITH, from the Committee of Claims, to whom was
recommitted, on the fifteenth ultimo, their report on the memorial of
Paul Coulon, a French citizen, made a supplementary report thereon;
which was read, and ordered to be referred to a Committee of the whole
House to-day.

On motion it was _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to examine
and report the state of the office of the Clerk of this House.

_Ordered_, That Mr. CLAY, Mr. HUGER, and Mr. SOUTHARD, be appointed a
committee pursuant to the said resolution.

Mr. MITCHILL, from the committee to whom were referred, on the fifth
instant, the amendments proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled "An
act for revising and amending the acts concerning naturalization,"
reported that the committee had had the said amendments under
consideration, and directed him to report to the House their agreement
to the same.

_North-western Territory._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to
enable the people of the eastern division of the Territory north-west of
the river Ohio to form a constitution and State Government, and for the
admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the
original States, and for other purposes.

Mr. FEARING moved to amend the bill so as to embrace the population of
the eastern division as bounded by the articles of the ordinance, the
effect of which motion would be to include about thirty thousand
inhabitants of that division, that are excluded by the provisions of the
bill, and respecting whom it is provided in the bill, that they may
hereafter be added by Congress to the new State, or disposed of
otherwise, as provided by the fifth article of the compact.

This motion gave rise to a debate of considerable length, in which
Messrs. FEARING, BAYARD, GRISWOLD, GODDARD, HENDERSON, and RANDOLPH,
supported; and Messrs. GILES, BACON, and R. WILLIAMS, opposed the
amendment.

Those who supported the amendment contended that the exclusion of that
portion of territory occupied by about three thousand inhabitants was
both unconstitutional and inexpedient. On the ground of
constitutionality, they contended, that under the articles of the
compact, which were to be considered as the constitution of the
territory, Congress had only the right of forming the eastern division
into one, two, or three States; and that under this power, no right
existed to form one part of the division into a State, and leave the
remaining section in a Territorial condition; that the rights of the
whole of the inhabitants of the eastern division were equal, and if one
part was, so also must the remaining part be, admitted to the privilege
of a State.

On the ground of expediency, it was contended that the situation of the
excluded inhabitants would be peculiarly hard; that, if attached to the
Indiana Territory, they would be placed two or three hundred miles from
it; that they would be furthermore degraded from the second to the first
branch of Territorial government, and that they would be deprived, by
the reduction of their numbers, from the prospect of being admitted for
a great number of years, to State rights.

On the contrary, the opponents of the amendment contended that the
provisions of the bill were both constitutional and expedient; that
under the compact the right was given to Congress of admitting the
eastern division into the Union, in the form of one, two, or three
States; that this right involved a discretion to admit a part of that
division at one time, and the remaining part at a subsequent period;
that if the whole division were once admitted into the Union, Congress
would be prohibited from dividing hereafter, when it was acknowledged
such division would be expedient, the said division into two or more
States, without the consent of the State now formed.

That, as to considerations of expediency, the hardships likely to be
felt by the excluded inhabitants were such as arose, not from the
provisions of the bill, but from their local situation; and that it was
not true that they would be degraded by annexation to the Indiana
Territory; to a lower grade of Territorial character than they at
present enjoyed--the grade being the same.

Mr. RANDOLPH supported the amendment on peculiar ground, declaring that
if the amendment should not prevail, he would still vote for the
admission. He declared himself in favor of the amendment, principally
from a desire to avoid the introduction of too many small States into
the Union.

The question was then taken on Mr. FEARING'S amendment, and lost--yeas
34, nays 38.

Mr. FEARING moved so to amend the bill as to leave to the new State the
right of naming itself. Agreed to.

After some discussion of the details of the bill, the committee rose and
repeated the bill, with amendments.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, do lie on the table.


THURSDAY, April 8.

Mr. JOHN TALIAFERRO, Jun., from the committee to whom was referred, on
the fifth instant, the petition of sundry citizens of Georgetown, in
the District of Columbia, with instruction to report thereon by bill or
otherwise, presented a bill to incorporate the Directors of the
Columbian Library Company; which was read twice, and committed to a
Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

Mr. DENNIS, from the committee to whom was referred, on the fifth of
February last, a motion, in the form of two resolutions of the House,
"respecting the adjustment of the existing disputes between the
Commissioners of the City of Washington, and other persons who may
conceive themselves injured by the several alterations made in the plan
of the said city; also, relative to a plan of the said City of
Washington, conformably, as nearly as may be, to the original design
thereof, with certain exceptions," made a report thereon; which was
read, and ordered to be referred to a Committee of the whole House on
Monday next.

Mr. JOHN TALIAFERRO, Jun., from the committee appointed, presented a
bill to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, in the
District of Columbia; which was read twice and committed to a Committee
of the whole House on Monday next.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the
Treasury, enclosing a statement prepared by the Register, of the
application of the appropriations made by Congress for clerk-hire, in
the several offices of the Treasury Department, specifying the names of
the persons, and the salaries allowed to each, for the three last years,
in pursuance of a resolution of this House, of the twenty-fifth ultimo;
which were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the
Treasury, accompanying two statements, marked A and B, relative to
expenses incurred by the United States in the exercise of jurisdiction
over the territory of Columbia, since the assumption of jurisdiction by
Congress, prepared in pursuance of a resolution of this House of the
first instant; which were read, and ordered to be referred to the
committee appointed, on the eighth of December last, to inquire whether
any, and, if any, what alterations or amendments may be necessary in the
existing government and laws of the District of Columbia.

The House proceeded to consider the report of the select committee to
whom were referred, on the fifth instant, the amendments of the Senate
to the bill, entitled "An act for revising and amending the acts
concerning naturalization," which lay on the table: Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That this House doth agree to the said amendments, with
amendments, to the section proposed to be substituted by the Senate in
lieu of the first and second sections of the original bill.

Mr. NICHOLSON, from the committee appointed on the second instant,
presented a bill to abolish the Board of Commissioners in the city of
Washington, and to make provision for the repayment of loans made by
the State of Maryland for the use of the city; which was read twice and
committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

Mr. NICHOLSON, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to provide
more effectually for the due application of public money, and for the
accountability of persons intrusted therewith; which was read twice and
committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
supplementary report of the Committee on Claims, of the seventh instant,
to whom was recommitted, on the fifteenth ultimo, their report on the
memorial of Paul Coulon, a French citizen; and after some time spent
therein, the committee rose and reported a resolution, which was twice
read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That there be paid to Paul Coulon, as agent for the captors
of the ship Betty Cathcart and brig Aaron, prizes to the French
privateer La Bellone, out of any moneys in the Treasury, not otherwise
appropriated, the sum of six thousand two hundred and forty-one dollars
and forty-four cents, being the amount retained by the Treasury
Department, from the sales of the ship Betty Cathcart, and for duties on
the cargo of the brig Aaron.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said
resolution; and that the Committee on Claims do prepare and bring in the
same.

_North-western Territory._

The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported yesterday from
the Committee of the Whole to the bill to enable the people of the
Eastern division of the Territory north-west of the river Ohio to form a
constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State
into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for
other purposes, which lay on the table; and the same being severally
twice read, were, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House.

A motion was then made, further to amend the said bill, at the Clerk's
table, by striking out, in the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth
lines of the second section thereof, the following words: "and on the
north, by an east and west line, drawn through the southerly extreme of
Lake Michigan, running east, after intersecting the due north line
aforesaid, from the mouth of the Great Miami, until it shall intersect
Lake Erie or"--and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "to."

It passed in the negative--yeas 27, nays 44, as follows:

      YEAS.--James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, Manasseh Cutler, John
      Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, Ebenezer Elmer,
      Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William
      Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H.
      Hill, Benjamin Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R. Morris,
      James Mott, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Cotton Smith,
      John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Thomas
      Tillinghast, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
      Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Richard Brent, Robert Brown,
      William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew
      Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John
      Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, William Eustis,
      John Fowler, William B. Giles, John A. Hanna, Daniel
      Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George
      Jackson, Charles Johnson, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore,
      Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John
      Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,) Samuel
      Smith, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John
      Taliaferro, jr., Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John
      Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert Williams.

Mr. JOHN C. SMITH moved further to amend the bill, by striking out the
third section thereof, in the words following, to wit:

      _And be it further enacted_, That all male citizens of the
      United States, who shall have arrived at full age, and
      resided within the said Territory at least one year
      previous to the day of election, and shall have paid a
      territorial or county tax, and all persons having, in other
      respects, the legal qualifications to vote for
      Representatives in the General Assembly of the Territory,
      be, and they are hereby, authorized to choose
      Representatives to form a Convention, who shall be
      apportioned amongst the several counties within the Eastern
      division aforesaid, in a ratio of one Representative to
      every ---- inhabitants of each county, according to the
      enumeration taken under the authority of the United States,
      as near as may be, that is to say: from the county of
      Trumbull, ---- Representatives; from the county of
      Jefferson, ---- Representatives, ---- of the ---- to be
      elected within what is now known by the county of Belmont,
      taken from Jefferson and Washington Counties; from the
      county of Washington, ---- Representatives; from the county
      of Ross, ---- Representatives, ---- of the ---- to be
      elected in what is now known by Fairfield County, taken
      from Ross and Washington Counties; from the county of
      Adams, ---- Representatives; from the county of Hamilton,
      ---- Representatives, ---- of the ---- to be elected in
      what is now known by Clermont County, taken entirely from
      Hamilton County: and the elections for the Representatives
      aforesaid, shall take place on the second Tuesday of
      October next, the time fixed by a law of the Territory,
      entitled "An act to ascertain the number of free male
      inhabitants of the age of twenty-one, in the Territory of
      the United States north-west of the river Ohio, and to
      regulate the elections of Representatives for the same,"
      for electing Representatives to the General Assembly, and
      shall be held and conducted in the same manner as is
      provided by the aforesaid act, except that the
      qualifications of electors shall be as herein specified.

The motion to strike out was supported by Messrs. JOHN C. SMITH,
GODDARD, FEARING, and HENDERSON, and opposed by Messrs. GILES, MITCHILL,
R. WILLIAMS, ELMER, and HOLLAND, on the ground that the right of the
United States to admit necessarily involved the power of prescribing a
convention.

The yeas and nays were taken, and it passed in the negative--yeas 26,
nays 48, as follows:

      YEAS.--Thomas Boude, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John
      Davenport, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold,
      Seth Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson,
      Benjamin Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Thomas Morris, Thomas
      Plater, Nathan Read, William Shepard, John Cotton Smith,
      John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Thomas Tillinghast, George B.
      Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel
      Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Phanuel
      Bishop, Richard Brent, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell,
      Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, John Condit, Thomas T.
      Davis, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph,
      Ebenezer Elmer, John Fowler, William B. Giles, Edwin Gray,
      John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, William Helms, William Hoge,
      James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Charles
      Johnson, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Mott,
      Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John
      Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah
      Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford,
      Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr.,
      David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
      Isaac Van Horne, and Robert Williams.

Mr. FEARING said he was of opinion that some provision ought to be made
for the inhabitants excluded from the new State, and the continuance of
suits from the old to the new Government; for these purposes he moved
the recommitment of the bill. Lost.

Mr. DANA proposed so to amend the fourth section, as that a majority of
the whole number of delegates elected in the Convention, instead of a
majority of those present, should first determine whether it be or be
not expedient to form a constitution, &c.

The yeas and nays were called, and the motion carried--yeas 38, nays 33,
as follows:

      YEAS.--Thomas Boude, William Brent, John Condit, Manasseh
      Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis,
      Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Abiel
      Foster, John Fowler, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray, Roger
      Griswold, John A. Hanna, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald
      Henderson, William Hoge, Benjamin Huger, Lewis R. Morris,
      Thomas Morris, James Mott, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read,
      William Shepard, John Cotton Smith, Henry Southard, Richard
      Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Stratton,
      Samuel Tenney, Thomas Tillinghast, John Trigg, George B.
      Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, and Lemuel Williams.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Robert
      Brown, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne,
      Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Richard Cutts, John Dawson,
      William Dickson, William B. Giles, William Helms, James
      Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Charles Johnson,
      Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas
      Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Smilie, Israel
      Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,) Samuel Smith, John
      Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram
      Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert Williams.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
to-morrow.


FRIDAY, April 9.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed
a bill, entitled "An act to amend the Judicial System of the United
States;" to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

[The chief alterations made from the old system consist in the holding
the Supreme Court only once a year by four justices, and the
establishment of six circuits, within each district of which circuit
courts are to be holden twice a year, composed of one justice of the
Supreme Court and the judge of the district, in which said court is
held.]

The bill was read twice, and referred to a select committee.

_Ohio State Government._

An engrossed bill to enable the people of the Eastern division of the
Territory north-west of the river Ohio to form a constitution and State
Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an
equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes, was read
the third time, and the blanks therein filled up: And, on the question
that the same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 47, nays
29, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
      Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Richard Brent, Robert Brown,
      William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew
      Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Thomas T. Davis, John
      Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer,
      William Eustis, John Fowler, William B. Giles, William
      Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Samuel
      L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas
      Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Smilie, Israel
      Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Samuel
      Smith, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart,
      John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson,
      Abram Trigg, John Trigg, John P. Van Ness, Isaac Van Horne,
      and Robert Williams.

      NAYS.--Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel
      W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster, Calvin
      Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth
      Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin
      Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris,
      Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, William Shepard, John Cotton
      Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Thomas
      Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer,
      Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.


MONDAY, April 12.

An engrossed bill for the relief of Theodosius Fowler, was read the
third time, and passed.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for the relief of
Paul Coulon, which was reported without amendment, and ordered to be
engrossed and read the third time to-day.

Mr. S. SMITH, from the committee appointed, presented a bill for the
relief of Lewis Tousard; which was read twice and committed to the
Committee of the Whole for to-morrow.

Mr. CLAY, from the committee appointed on the seventh instant, to
examine and report on the state of the office of the Clerk of this
House, made a report: which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to
provide for the establishment of certain districts, and therein to amend
an act, entitled "An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports
and tonnage," and for other purposes; and, after some time spent
therein, the committee rose and reported several amendments thereto;
which were severally twice read, and agreed to by the House.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, be engrossed, and
read the third time to-morrow.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of
the Secretary of State, of the seventh instant, to whom was referred, on
the nineteenth of January last, the memorial of Fulwar Skipwith; and
after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported two
resolutions thereupon; which were severally twice read and agreed to by
the House, as follows:

      _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law, for the
      payment of four thousand five hundred and fifty dollars,
      unto Fulwar Skipwith, (which sum was advanced by him to the
      United States,) with an interest of ---- per centum, from
      the first of November, one thousand seven hundred and
      ninety-five.

      _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law, for
      compensating the said Fulwar Skipwith, for his services
      from the first of November, one thousand seven hundred and
      ninety-six, to the first of May, one thousand seven hundred
      and ninety-nine, at the rate of ---- dollars, per annum.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said
resolutions; and that Mr. DAWSON, Mr. VAN CORTLANDT, and Mr. STANTON, do
prepare and bring in the same.

The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the report of the
committee of the twenty-second of January, on the petition of Sarah
Fletcher and Jane Ingraham, referred to them on the tenth of December
last, and, after some time spent therein, the committee rose and
reported several resolutions thereupon; which were severally twice read,
and agreed to by the House, as follows:

      _Resolved_, That it is expedient to grant to the widows and
      children, as the case may be, of the officers, seamen, and
      marines, who were lost at sea, on board the ship Insurgent
      and brigantine Pickering, lately in the service of the
      United States, four months' pay of their respective
      husbands or fathers.

      _Resolved_, That it is expedient to provide by law for the
      payment of five years' half pay to the widows and children,
      as the case may be, of such officers in the naval service
      of the United States as shall be slain in battle, or die,
      when in the actual line of their duty.

      _Resolved_, That the widows and children of those officers
      who were lost at sea in the ship Insurgent and brigantine
      Pickering, shall be entitled to this provision.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said
resolutions; and that Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. GODDARD, and Mr. STANTON, do
prepare and bring in the same.

An engrossed bill for the relief of Paul Coulon was read the third time
and passed.

Mr. S. SMITH, from the committee appointed the ninth instant, on the
part of this House, jointly, with the committee appointed on the part of
the Senate, "to consider and report what business is necessary to be
done by Congress in their present session, and when it may be expedient
to close the same," made a report thereon; which was read, and ordered
to lie on the table.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for the relief of
sick and disabled seamen.

Mr. EUSTIS moved to strike out the first section which forms the moneys
devoted to the above object into a general fund, to be applied according
to the discretion of the President, instead of suffering it to remain,
as heretofore, applied to the particular ports, (or those in the
vicinity,) from which the moneys are derived.

This motion was supported by Messrs. EUSTIS, MITCHILL, and DANA, and
opposed by Messrs. S. SMITH, MILLEDGE, DAVIS, MACON, and HUGER.

The question was then taken on striking out the first section, and lost;
when the committee rose, and reported the bill with amendments.


MONDAY, April 19.

_Navy Pensions._

An engrossed bill for the relief of widows and orphans of certain
persons who have died, or may hereafter die, in the naval service of the
United States, was read the third time; and, on the question that the
same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 34, nays 29.

_Compensation of Collectors._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill to amend the act
fixing the compensation of officers employed in the collection of duties
on imposts and tonnage.

This bill allows certain compensations to collectors of ports, provided
the clear annual receipt does not exceed $5,000. A motion was made to
strike out $5,000, for the purpose of introducing $4,000.

It was contended that this latter sum was sufficient compensation to any
collector; that it greatly exceeded most of the compensations allowed to
the Federal officers; and that as money was appreciating, it became
necessary to reduce the salaries of officers generally.

In reply it was observed that very few collectors would receive so large
a sum as $5,000--none other than those of New York, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, and perhaps Charleston; that the responsibility attached to
these officers was greater than that attached to any other, as in some
instances two million of dollars passed through their hands; that the
temptation to violate duty was proportionably great; and that, from
these considerations, it became the Government to afford them a liberal
compensation; and that the sum was considerably below that heretofore
allowed.

The question was taken on striking out $5,000, and lost--yeas 26.

Mr. STANLEY moved to strike out that part of the bill which deducted
from the compensations made to the collectors of Newbern and Edenton,
the sum of $250, heretofore allowed beyond their fees.

For this motion he assigned several reasons: among which were the
inadequacy of the compensations, viz: about $1,600 to the duties
performed, which were, notwithstanding the small amount of duties, very
burdensome, owing to the smallness of the cargoes imported, and theirs
being greatly inferior to the compensations allowed to the collectors of
Wilmington and Petersburg.

Mr. S. SMITH informed the committee that the principle on which the
several compensations had been graduated was, that when the gross
emoluments exceed $2,000, the salary heretofore allowed by law, in
addition to the emoluments, should be withdrawn. This was the fact in
relation to the ports of Newbern and Edenton; and as the duties in each
of these ports did not exceed $45,000, the compensation seemed adequate;
he was, however, far from being tenacious, and would have little
objection to a vote of the House which should increase it. Motion
lost--yeas 25.

The committee rose, and reported the bill without amendment.

Mr. SOUTHARD renewed the motion to strike out $5,000, for the purpose of
inserting $4,000, (the same motion made in committee,) and assigned
substantially the same reasons above stated.

Messrs. STANLEY, BACON, and SMILIE, delivered a few observations for,
and Mr. HUGER against the motion, which was taken by yeas and nays, on
the call of Mr. SOUTHARD, and lost--yeas 31, nays 40.


THURSDAY, April 22.

_French Spoliations._

Mr. GILES, from the committee appointed on the fifth of February last,
to whom were referred the memorials and petitions of sundry citizens of
the United States, and resident merchants therein, praying relief in the
case of depredations committed on their vessels and cargoes, while in
pursuit of lawful commerce, by the cruisers of the French Republic,
during the late European war, made a report thereon; which was read, and
ordered to lie on the table.


FRIDAY, April 23.

_Judiciary System._

The question was then put on the passage of the bill.

Mr. BAYARD called for the yeas and nays, which were taken, and
stood--yeas 46, nays 30, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
      Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Walter Bowie, Richard Brent, Robert
      Brown, William Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John
      Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, William
      Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, William B. Giles,
      Edwin Gray, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, William Helms,
      James Holland, David Holmes, Michael Leib, John Milledge,
      Anthony New, Joseph H. Nicholson, John Smilie, Israel
      Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of
      Virginia,) Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford,
      Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr.,
      Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van
      Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert
      Williams.

      NAYS.--James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, John Campbell,
      Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T.
      Davis, John Dennis, Ebenezer Elmer, Abiel Foster, Calvin
      Goddard, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings, Archibald
      Henderson, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris,
      James Mott, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Stanley, John
      Stratton, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Thomas
      Tillinghast, George P. Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel
      Williams, and Henry Woods.


TUESDAY, April 27.

_Naval Sites._

UNAUTHORIZED PURCHASES.

Mr. MITCHILL, from the committee appointed on so much of the President's
Message as relates to naval sites, &c., made a further report. The
report concludes as follows:

      "The committee find that, prior to the fourth of March,
      1801, the sum of one hundred and ninety-nine thousand and
      thirty dollars, and ninety-two cents, has been expended in
      purchasing navy yards and making improvements upon them,
      without any law authorizing the purchase, or any
      appropriation of money, either for purchase or
      improvements."


WEDNESDAY, April 28.

_Sedition Act._

PETITION OF THOMAS COOPER.

A petition of Thomas Cooper, of the county of Northumberland, in the
State of Pennsylvania, was presented to the House and read, setting
forth that, in the month of April, eighteen hundred, he was tried and
condemned at Philadelphia, before Samuel Chase and Richard Peters,
judges of the circuit court of the United States there sitting, for
having written and published a libel upon the political character and
conduct of John Adams, the then President of the United States; and was
thereupon adjudged to pay a fine of four hundred dollars, and to suffer
an imprisonment of six months; which punishment he accordingly
underwent; that he apprehends the said trial, condemnation, and
punishment, were unjust: first, because the law, commonly called the
Sedition law, under which he was indicted, was passed in direct
opposition to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution of the
United States; and secondly, because the said judges did not only take
for granted the constitutionality of the said law, but did unjustly and
improperly refuse to grant him a _subpoena ad testificandum_, directed
to the said John Adams; and therefore praying such redress as the wisdom
of Congress shall deign to bestow.

Mr. GRISWOLD moved to reject the prayer of the petition.

Mr. GILES moved to postpone the consideration of the petition till the
third Monday in November.

On this motion a debate ensued, in which Mr. GILES and Mr. RANDOLPH
supported, and Mr. GRISWOLD and Mr. BAYARD opposed the motion.

The question on postponement was carried, by a large majority.


SATURDAY, May 1.

_Disbursement of Public Moneys._

UNAUTHORIZED PURCHASE OF NAVY YARDS.

Mr. GRISWOLD.--Again, the committee say that four navy yards were
purchased without authority, and the money misapplied which was paid for
them. In my judgment, this is one of the most extraordinary opinions
ever pronounced. The facts which gave rise to the purchase of the navy
yards were as follows: In the year 1799, Congress authorized by law the
building of six 74-gun ships, and one million of dollars was then
appropriated for that object, and for building six sloops-of-war. The
Secretary of the Treasury found that the committee ought to have
understood that ships could not be built either in the air or upon the
water, and as he was directed to build the ships, that he must, of
course, procure land to place them upon, and that the land must be
either purchased or hired. He found that there was not a navy yard
within the United States calculated for building ships-of-the-line, and
that the expense of preparing yards upon private property would be lost
the moment the ship was launched, and of course that this would be bad
economy. Experience had likewise taught him, that the better mode would
be to purchase the ground, as it would then remain at the control of the
Government, so long as it was wanted, and the improvements would be
saved. This course was accordingly pursued, and I believe that few
gentlemen, except the committee, will conclude that it was not the
wisest and best. But whether it was the best course or not, it was
certainly authorized by law, because it can never be seriously doubted,
whether a law which directs a thing to be done, does authorize the
agents to be employed to do every thing which becomes necessary for
accomplishing the object. The laws which have authorized the building of
ships have certainly empowered the public agents to purchase timber,
copper, cordage, and every other necessary material, and yet no law for
those objects has ever named any one of those articles. On the same
principle, the law which directed the building of these particular
ships, necessarily authorized the public agent to procure the ground to
place them upon, although it was not said, whether the ships should be
built upon the water or upon the land.

But there has been one omission in this part of the report, which, on
every principle of fairness ought to be connected with it, and for which
purpose the report ought to be recommitted: the omission of the letter
of Mr. Stoddert, late Secretary of the Navy, explanatory of the purchase
made by him of the navy yards, addressed to the committee, in answer to
an application made by them upon this subject. This letter contains, in
my opinion, a complete justification of that transaction, and was so
viewed by the minority of the committee, who urged that it might, at
least, be included in the report; but, to our astonishment, the minority
refused this justice to the man whom their report had implicated. This
opinion of the majority, in respect to the propriety of including Mr.
Stoddert's letter, I must believe, will remain a solitary one, for I can
scarcely imagine it possible that any other gentleman in this House
would have refused, when they presented a charge against this gentleman
with one hand, to offer with the other his vindication, written at their
own request. If, however, the motion to recommit should prevail, I will
then move an instruction to the committee, which will produce Mr.
Stoddert's letter.

What renders the report of the committee still more extraordinary, both
in respect to erecting the buildings, and also the purchase of navy
yards, is, that another subject, resembling these in principle, was
before the committee, and on which they refused to report. This was the
erecting of the extensive navy stores in this place by the present
Administration.

The present Secretary of the Navy was requested to inform the committee
when those stores were erected, and from what fund the money had been
taken. His answer satisfied the committee that the stores had been
erected by the present Administration, and that the money, if I
recollect correctly, had been taken from an appropriation for the 74's,
navy yards, and docks. The minority of the committee believed, what I
trust will be generally believed by those who examine the question, that
this was (to say no more of it) at least as doubtful an expenditure as
that for the purchase of navy yards, or for erecting the buildings on
the Schuylkill. If an authority to build 74's, to complete navy yards
and docks, gave an authority to erect stores for the accommodation of
the navy, it was thought that an authority to build ships, necessarily
included a power to procure the land to place them upon; and that an
authority to purchase military stores and to manage the affairs of the
army necessarily included a power to furnish, at the public expense,
buildings to cover the stores, and for other necessary military
purposes, at the discretion of the officers intrusted with those
concerns. The minority of the committee, therefore, urged to include
this transaction in the report, together with the letter of the
Secretary of the Navy, but the request was rejected by the majority. We
believed that the cases were precisely similar in principle, and that it
was not conducting with impartiality to include the one without the
other; and we have thought that when it was discovered that the present
Administration was conducting on principles precisely similar to those
of their predecessors, it would greatly tend to satisfy all parties that
the conduct of the Government had been correct. I feel no hesitation in
declaring that, in my judgment, the present Administration were
authorized to erect the navy stores, although I believe that the power
may be better questioned than it could be in the other cases. These navy
stores, I presume, are useful both for receiving the necessary materials
for ship building, and securing the stores of the public ships laid up
in ordinary; and although not expressly authorized by the words of the
law, may very well be considered as a proper appendage to a navy yard,
or as buildings rendered necessary in the finishing of the 74's; and as
to the extent of the buildings, I am content to leave that point to the
Department to which it has been confided. The propriety, however, of
including this statement in the report (I trust) will be apparent to the
House, and it will not in this place be thought correct to confine our
criticisms exclusively to the past Administration. I therefore urge this
as a further reason for recommitting the report.

Mr. NICHOLSON had very little inclination, at this time, to enter into
an explanation of this subject, which had been so misunderstood by the
gentleman just up, on account of indisposition, nor was he very
anxiously opposed to the recommitment, but he could perceive not a
shadow of reason why the report should be recommitted.

The gentleman had grounded his motion upon the opinion, that all the
necessary facts had not been stated. It was, to be sure, a very late
period of the session, and the discussion would therefore consume much
precious time; but notwithstanding that, if it should appear that any
material facts had been suppressed, there would be good ground for
recommitting the report. He should therefore think it necessary to test
the grounds advanced, to prove the necessity of the recommitment.

As to the navy yards, the committee having been appointed "to report
whether moneys drawn from the Treasury have been faithfully applied to
the objects for which they were appropriated, and whether the same have
been regularly accounted for;" and knowing that six navy yards had been
purchased, very naturally inquired under what authority these purchases
had been made, and how they were paid for. They referred to the law
authorizing the building of six seventy-fours and six sloops-of-war.
The committee submitted an inquiry to the former Secretary of the Navy,
(Mr. Stoddert,) directing him to inform the committee as to the
purchase. Mr. Stoddert answered that a law had passed, appropriating one
million of dollars for building the seventy-fours and sloops-of-war, and
that fifty thousand dollars were also appropriated for two dock-yards;
and also that two hundred thousand dollars were appropriated for the
purchase of timber, or land clothed therewith; and that he thought
himself authorized to purchase six navy yards, wherein to build the
seventy-fours. To these several laws the committee referred for the
authority under which the Secretary acted, but they could find no such
authority; they could find no other, than authority to purchase two
dock-yards, wherein to repair the ships. Now, although not stated in the
report, there is very good reason to believe that the fifty thousand
dollars never was laid out upon the two dock-yards, but that this sum
was cast into the surplus fund. Whether Mr. Stoddert's opinion was
correct or not, that it would be more economical to build the
seventy-fours in public yards, than in private yards at rent, they were
not appointed to inquire; it was their business to say whether he was
authorized to act so, let his private opinion be what it might. The
committee were clearly of opinion, that he was not authorized to take
money appropriated for one purpose and make use of it for another.

As to the reason, why the gentleman wishes the report recommitted; to
wit, to insert Mr. Stoddert's answer with the report; it is true a
motion for the insertion was made. But the committee thought that letter
was addressed to them, and not to the House; that it was to inform their
minds, so as to enable them to make the report. They paid due attention
to the reasoning of the letter, but it did not convince them that Mr. S.
acted authoritatively. Mr. Stoddert's reasoning upon the subject could
not form a part of the report; the committee were called upon to form an
opinion, and not to substitute that of any individual. They were to
inquire whether moneys appropriated were used to the purposes for which
they were appropriated. They thought it was not, because it was
appropriated to build ships, and to purchase land with timber on it, or
timber alone. The question then is, whether six navy yards are six
seventy-four gun ships, and whether six sloops-of-war are lands with
timber growing on it or not? If Mr. Stoddert's reasoning had been
adopted by the committee, it would have become their reasoning, and
except it should be theirs, it would have had no business in the report.
If a disposition of vindication could have been admitted, Mr. Stoddert
might have been permitted to have appeared with counsel before the
committee, but facts alone were required, and facts the committee state.
Ships had been built for the public before, but the idea never was
entertained to build docks for them. No measure different from those
taken in the building of the frigates, except by legal authority, ought
to have been taken with the seventy-fours.

The case of the navy yard at this place was brought before the
committee. It was the request of the minority that the case should be
inquired into. The committee sent to request the Secretary of the Navy
to say by what authority the storehouse had been erected here, or from
what fund it was paid. The answer was, that the storehouse had been
erected out of a fund granted in February, eighteen hundred and one, for
completing the seventy-fours, the navy yards, and the docks. The ships
had been ordered to be laid up in ordinary at this place, and the navy
yard purchased. When the present Secretary of the Navy came into office,
he found, that as a navy yard was to be completed here, and as sails,
rigging, and other naval stores, must be kept here; and finding that one
storehouse was already built, and another begun, here, it would be most
prudent to complete that storehouse, as a necessary appendage to a navy
yard where shipping would be sent for repairs. To this none of the
gentlemen objected, but rather approved; and this is surely a purpose to
which the money was appropriated. Whether the other applications are or
not, is for the House to decide. The committee have stated the facts.

The gentleman says the accountant of the War Department was satisfied
with the accounts of General Wilkins. I did not understand the fact
so--vouchers were sent on, but they were not satisfactory.

Mr. BAYARD.--I shall beg the indulgence only of a few words, upon one or
two heads, respecting which, the opinion I entertain is decidedly
opposed to that expressed by a majority of the committee. I cannot well
conceive of a plainer mistake, than what appears in the opinion,
pronounced on the purchase of six navy yards, made by the late Secretary
of the Navy. The committee, I think, ought to be allowed an opportunity
of reviewing that opinion. Four of those six yards are considered as
purchased without authority, and the money paid for them misapplied.

By the act of the Legislature, of February, 1799, the Secretary of the
Navy was directed to cause to be built six ships, each to carry not less
than seventy-four guns; and six sloops-of-war of eighteen guns. For this
purpose, a million of dollars was appropriated; two hundred thousand
were appropriated to the purchase of land, bearing timber suitable for
the navy, and fifty thousand dollars for the making of two docks. These
laws, passed on successive days, indicated the design of a permanent
Navy Establishment. It was perfectly understood that the ships of the
line were not directed to be built for the occasional defence of the
country at that period, but were intended as the commencement of a
lasting system of defence, which was expected to increase with the
growth of the commerce and resources of the country. It was far from
our expectation that the Navy of the United States was to be limited to
six ships of the line, or to any number within the convenient means of
the country, short of a force adequate to render our flag respectable
and our navigation secure. It was not supposed that the seventy-fours
would be launched for several years, but we had hopes when they left the
stocks, a flourishing commerce would enable us to lay the keels of new
ships in their places. Under this view were the two hundred thousand
dollars appropriated, to the purchase of land producing timber fit for a
navy. With this knowledge, so plainly derivable from the policy pursued
by the Legislature, what was the Secretary of the Navy to do? It was
made his duty to build six seventy-fours and six sloops-of-war. It is
surely not expected that they were to be built on the water or in the
air, and of consequence it will be allowed that he had authority to
provide yards, for the purpose of constructing them. The public had no
yards, and it was therefore necessary to obtain ground from individuals.
As there were no persons disposed to make charitable grants, it remained
only for the United States to purchase ground in fee simple, or for a
term of years, paying a gross sum or an annual rent. The act of
Congress, directing the ships to be built, appropriated not a dollar
either for the renting or for the purchase of land. But a million of
dollars were appropriated to the building of the ships, which was
directed to be done, but which could not be done without an expenditure
for land. Can there be a plainer proposition, than that an appropriation
for a certain service, embraces every article without which the service
cannot be performed? In the present instance, the service imposed upon
the Secretary, could not be performed without obtaining navy yards at
the public expense. It therefore rested in his discretion, for the
faithful exercise of which he was accountable to the Government, either
to purchase or rent the ground, necessary for the yards. It was his duty
to conform to the views of the Legislature, and to make such an
arrangement as would be most advantageous to the public. If it answered
the object, and was most for the interest of the Government to rent,
then surely he ought to have rented it; but if it comported more with
their views, or was more to their benefit to purchase, it was then his
duty to purchase.

This inquiry, however, was never made by the committee. They never asked
the question whether it was cheaper to buy or to rent, and they have
condemned the Secretary for buying and not renting, when he had no more
authority to rent than to buy, and when by buying he has probably saved
to the United States several hundred thousand dollars. The situation of
this officer is peculiarly hard. Having been directed to build a number
of ships for the public service, he has purchased navy yards for the
purpose, and in consequence has subjected himself to the accusation of
expending public money without authority. If he had rented land for the
purpose, he would have been equally liable to the same reproach; and if
he had neglected to do either, he would have been exposed to an
impeachment. The Secretary has it fully in his power to show, that his
purchases will save a large sum of money to the United States. A navy
yard, for a seventy-four, cannot be prepared without great expense.
Under this head, I am informed by the Secretary, that one hundred
thousand dollars were expended on one frigate, the Constellation. This
was occasioned in a great degree by leasing the yard. At the expiration
of the lease, the public lose the benefit of all their expense in
preparing and improving the ground.

In addition to the inference which the Secretary might fairly make, of
an authority to purchase ground for the navy yards, if a purchase could
be made on cheaper terms than a contract of lease, he had further to
consider the intention, plainly manifested by the Legislature, of
establishing a system which would require the use of these navy yards at
a future time, beyond the duration of any common lease. Nay, he knew not
what time was to be consumed in building the ships directed, and of
course could not know for what term a contract could be made. At
present, if the Government should be disposed to sell the ships on the
stocks, they have the power to sell the navy yards, and they will have
the same power when the ships are launched; and they may thus convert in
effect the permanent purchase into a term for years, and restore to the
Treasury the money which has been expended. But, sir, what I consider as
the hardest act on the part of the majority of the committee, was their
refusal to suffer the answer of the Secretary to the letter we addressed
to him, explaining the grounds of his conduct, to accompany the
documents annexed to the report. We have been told by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. NICHOLSON) that it was not the business of the committee
to report the opinions of the Secretary, or of any other individual. If
this be correct, I believe it was as little the business of the
committee to report their own opinions. They should have confined
themselves to the statement of facts, and upon those facts have left the
House and the nation at large to form their own opinions.

If this course had been pursued, there would have been little occasion
to publish the reasoning of Mr. Stoddert; but, as the opinion of the
committee is merely their inference from certain premises, it was due to
the public, as well as to the Secretary, that the grounds should be
explained which had led him to a different conclusion from that adopted
by the committee. This report seems, at present, intended only for
public information; certainly I must believe to give correct
information. The letter of Mr. Stoddert throws great light upon a part
of it, and when our object is only to inform the people on a subject,
why should we refuse any light which places it more clearly before
their eyes?


MONDAY, 5 o'clock P. M., May 3.

_Adjournment._

On motion, _Ordered_, That Mr. GRISWOLD and Mr. SAMUEL SMITH be
appointed a committee, on the part of this House, jointly, with such
committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him of the proposed recess of
Congress.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have
appointed a committee on their part, jointly, with the committee
appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, and notify him of the proposed recess of Congress.

Mr. GRISWOLD, from the committee appointed on the part of this House,
jointly, with the committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait
on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him of the proposed
recess of Congress, reported that the committee had performed that
service; and that the PRESIDENT signified to them he had no farther
communication to make during the present Session.

_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 December next; and that the Clerk of
this House do go with the said message.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having
completed the Legislative business before them, are now ready to
adjourn. Whereupon,

The SPEAKER adjourned the House until the first Monday in December
next.




SEVENTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, DECEMBER 6, 1802.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, December 6, 1802.

In pursuance of the law of last session, the second session of the
seventh Congress commenced this day, at the city of Washington, and the
Senate assembled, in their Chamber, at the Capitol.

PRESENT:

SIMEON OLCOTT, from New Hampshire.

URIAH TRACY, from Connecticut.

CHRISTOPHER ELLERY, from Rhode Island.

STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, from Vermont.

SAMUEL WHITE, from Delaware.

ROBERT WRIGHT, from Maryland.

ABRAHAM BALDWIN, from Georgia.

WILLIAM PLUMER, appointed a Senator by the State of New Hampshire, to
supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of JAMES SHEAFE,
produced his credentials, and took his seat in the Senate.

The number of members assembled not being sufficient to form a quorum,
the Senate adjourned.


TUESDAY, December 7.

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE, from Kentucky; Mr. FOSTER, from Rhode Island; Mr.
HOWARD, from Maryland; and Mr. LOGAN, from Pennsylvania, severally
attended.

There being no quorum, the Senate adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, December 8.

The number of members assembled not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, the Senate adjourned.


THURSDAY, December 9.

The number of members assembled not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, the Senate adjourned.


FRIDAY, December 10.

Mr. S. T. MASON, from Virginia, attended.

The number of members assembled not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, the Senate adjourned.


SATURDAY, December 11.

Mr. FRANKLIN, from North Carolina, attended.

The number of members assembled not being sufficient to constitute a
quorum, the Senate adjourned.


MONDAY, December 13.

Mr. J. MASON, from Massachusetts; Mr. DAYTON, and Mr. OGDEN, from New
Jersey; and Mr. SUMTER, from South Carolina, severally attended.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the choice of a
President, _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and the ballots
being collected and counted, the whole number was found to be 17, of
which 9 make a majority.

Mr. Bradley had 7, Mr. Tracy had 7, Mr. Baldwin 1, Mr. Dayton 1, Mr.
Logan 1.

There was consequently no choice. Whereupon, the Senate proceeded to the
election of a President, _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides,
and the ballots being collected and counted, the whole number was found
to be 17, of which 9 make a majority.

Mr. Bradley had 8, Mr. Tracy 7, Mr. Dayton 1, Mr. Logan 1.

There was consequently no choice. Whereupon the Senate proceeded to the
election of a President _pro tempore_, as the Constitution provides, and
the ballots being counted, the whole number was found to be 17, of which
9 make a majority.

Mr. Bradley had 8, Mr. Tracy 7, Mr. Dayton 1, Mr. Logan 1.

There was consequently no choice. Whereupon, the Senate proceeded to the
election of a President, _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides,
and the ballots being counted, the whole number of votes was 14, of
which 8 make a majority.

Mr. Tracy had 7, Mr. Bradley 5, Mr. Dayton 1, Mr. Logan 1.

There was consequently no choice; and the Senate adjourned.


TUESDAY, December 14.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the choice of a
President, _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and the ballots
being collected and counted, the whole number was found to be 17, of
which 9 make a majority.

Mr. Bradley had 9, Mr. Tracy 7, Mr. Dayton 1.

Consequently, STEPHEN R. BRADLEY was elected President of the Senate,
_pro tempore_.

The credentials of Mr. PLUMER, appointed a Senator by the State of New
Hampshire, to supply a vacancy occasioned by the resignation of JAMES
SHEAFE, Esq., were read; and the oath prescribed by law was administered
to him by the President.

_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 STEPHEN R.
BRADLEY, President of the Senate, _pro tempore_.

A similar notice was directed to be given to the House of
Representatives, and also that the Senate are ready to proceed to
business.

On motion, it was agreed to proceed to the choice of a Chaplain on the
part of the Senate, and the ballots having been collected and counted,
the whole number was 17, of which 9 is the majority.

Doctor Gantt had 10, Mr. M'Cormick 4, Mr. Priestley 2, Mr. Balch 1.

So it was _Resolved_, That the Rev. Dr. GANTT be the Chaplain to
Congress, on the part of the Senate, during the present session.


WEDNESDAY, December 15.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

      _To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
      States_:

      When we assemble together, fellow-citizens, to consider the
      state of our beloved country, our just attentions are first
      drawn to those pleasing circumstances which mark the
      goodness of that Being from whose favor they flow, and the
      large measure of thankfulness we owe for his bounty.
      Another year has come around, and finds us still blessed
      with peace and friendship abroad; law, order, and religion,
      at home; good affection and harmony with our Indian
      neighbors; our burdens lightened, yet our income sufficient
      for the public wants, and the produce of the year great
      beyond example. These, fellow-citizens, are the
      circumstances under which we meet: and we remark, with
      special satisfaction, those which, under the smiles of
      Providence, result from the skill, industry, and order of
      our citizens, managing their own affairs in their own way,
      and for their own use, unembarrassed by too much
      regulation, unoppressed by fiscal exactions.

      On the restoration of peace in Europe, that portion of the
      general carrying trade which had fallen to our share during
      the war, was abridged by the returning competition of the
      belligerent powers. This was to be expected, and was just.
      But, in addition, we find in some parts of Europe
      monopolizing discriminations, which, in the form of
      duties, tend effectually to prohibit the carrying thither
      our own produce in our own vessels. From existing amities,
      and a spirit of justice, it is hoped that friendly
      discussion will produce a fair and adequate reciprocity.
      But should false calculations of interest defeat our hope,
      it rests with the Legislature to decide whether they will
      meet inequalities abroad with countervailing inequalities
      at home, or provide for the evil in any other way.

      It is with satisfaction I lay before you an act of the
      British Parliament anticipating this subject so far as to
      authorize a mutual abolition of the duties and
      countervailing duties, permitted under the treaty of 1794.
      It shows, on their part, a spirit of justice and friendly
      accommodation, which it is our duty and our interest to
      cultivate with all nations. Whether this would produce a
      due equality in the navigation between the two countries is
      a subject for your consideration.

      Another circumstance which claims attention, as directly
      affecting the very source of our navigation, is the defect
      or the evasion of the law providing for the return of
      seamen, and particularly of those belonging to vessels sold
      abroad. Numbers of them, discharged in foreign ports, have
      been thrown on the hands of our Consuls, who, to rescue
      them from the dangers into which their distresses might
      plunge them, and save them to their country, have found it
      necessary, in some cases, to return them at the public
      charge.

      The cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to France,
      which took place in the course of the late war, will, if
      carried into effect, make a change in the aspect of our
      foreign relations, which will doubtless have just weight in
      any deliberations of the Legislature connected with that
      subject.

      There was reason, not long since, to apprehend that the
      warfare in which we were engaged with Tripoli might be
      taken up by some other of the Barbary Powers. A
      reinforcement, therefore, was immediately ordered to the
      vessels already there. Subsequent information, however, has
      removed these apprehensions for the present. To secure our
      commerce in that sea with the smallest force competent, we
      have supposed it best to watch strictly the harbor of
      Tripoli. Still, however, the shallowness of their coast,
      and the want of smaller vessels on our part, has permitted
      some cruisers to escape unobserved; and to one of these an
      American vessel unfortunately fell a prey. The captain, one
      American seaman, and two others of color, remain prisoners
      with them; unless exchanged under an agreement formerly
      made with the Bashaw, to whom, on the faith of that, some
      of his captive subjects had been restored.

      The convention with the State of Georgia has been ratified
      by their Legislature, and a repurchase from the Creeks has
      been consequently made of a part of the Tallassee country.
      In this purchase has been also comprehended a part of the
      lands within the fork of Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers. The
      particulars of the contract will be laid before Congress so
      soon as they shall be in a state for communication.

      In order to remove every ground of difference possible with
      our Indian neighbors, I have proceeded in the work of
      settling with them and marking the boundaries between us.
      That with the Choctaw nation is fixed in one part, and will
      be through the whole within a short time. The country to
      which their title had been extinguished before the
      Revolution is sufficient to receive a very respectable
      population, which Congress will probably see the
      expediency of encouraging so soon as the limits shall be
      declared. We are to view this position as an outpost of the
      United States, surrounded by strong neighbors, and distant
      from its support. And how far that monopoly which prevents
      population should here be guarded against, and actual
      habitation made a condition of the continuance of title,
      will be for your consideration. A prompt settlement, too,
      of all existing rights and claims within this Territory
      presents itself as a preliminary operation.

      In that part of the Indiana Territory which includes
      Vincennes, the lines settled with the neighboring tribes
      fix the extinction of their title at a breadth of
      twenty-four leagues from east to west, and about the same
      length, parallel with and including the Wabash. They have
      also ceded a tract of four miles square, including the salt
      springs, near the mouth of that river.

      In the department of finance it is with pleasure I inform
      you that the receipts of external duties for the last
      twelve months have exceeded those of any former year, and
      that the ratio of increase has been also greater than
      usual. This has enabled us to answer all the regular
      exigencies of Government, to pay from the Treasury within
      one year upwards of eight millions of dollars, principal
      and interest, of the public debt, exclusive of upwards of
      one million paid by the sale of bank stock, and making in
      the whole a reduction of nearly five millions and a half of
      principal, and to have now in the Treasury four millions
      and a half of dollars, which are in a course of application
      to the further discharge of debt and current demands.
      Experience, too, so far, authorizes us to believe, if no
      extraordinary event supervenes, and the expenses which will
      be actually incurred shall not be greater than were
      contemplated by Congress at their last session, that we
      shall not be disappointed in the expectations then formed.
      But, nevertheless, as the effect of peace on the amount of
      duties is not yet fully ascertained, it is the more
      necessary to practise every useful economy, and to incur no
      expense which may be avoided without prejudice.

      No change being deemed necessary in our Military
      Establishment, an estimate of its expenses for the ensuing
      year, on its present footing, as also of the sums to be
      employed in fortifications, and other objects within that
      department, has been prepared by the Secretary of War, and
      will make a part of the general estimates which will be
      presented to you.

      Considering that our regular troops are employed for local
      purposes, and that the militia is our general reliance for
      great and sudden emergencies, you will doubtless think this
      institution worthy of a review, and give it those
      improvements of which you find it susceptible.

      Estimates for the Naval Department, prepared by the
      Secretary of the Navy, for another year, will, in like
      manner, be communicated with the general estimates. A small
      force in the Mediterranean will still be necessary to
      restrain the Tripoline cruisers; and the uncertain tenure
      of peace with some other of the Barbary Powers may
      eventually require that force to be augmented. The
      necessity of procuring some smaller vessels for that
      service will raise the estimate; but the difference in
      their maintenance will soon make it a measure of economy.

      Presuming it will be deemed expedient to expend annually a
      convenient sum towards providing the Naval defence which
      our situation may require, I cannot but recommend that the
      first appropriations for that purpose may go to the saving
      what we already possess. No cares, no attentions, can
      preserve vessels from rapid decay, which lie in water and
      exposed to the sun. These decays require great and constant
      repairs, and will consume, if continued, a great portion of
      the moneys destined to Naval purposes. To avoid this waste
      of our resources, it is proposed to add to our navy yard
      here a dock, within which our present vessels may be laid
      up dry, and under cover from the sun. Under these
      circumstances, experience proves that works of wood will
      remain scarcely at all affected by time. The great
      abundance of running water which this situation possesses,
      at heights far above the level of the tide, if employed as
      is practised for lock navigation, furnishes the means for
      raising and laying up our vessels on a dry and sheltered
      bed. And should the measure be found useful here, similar
      depositories for laying up, as well as for building and
      repairing vessels, may hereafter be undertaken at other
      navy yards offering the same means. The plans and estimates
      of the work, prepared by a person of skill and experience,
      will be presented to you without delay; and from this it
      will be seen that scarcely more than has been the cost of
      one vessel is necessary to save the whole, and that the
      annual sum to be employed towards its completion may be
      adapted to the views of the Legislature as to Naval
      expenditure.

      To cultivate peace, and maintain commerce and navigation in
      all their lawful enterprises; to foster our fisheries as
      nurseries of navigation and for the nurture of man, and
      protect the manufactures adapted to our circumstances; to
      preserve the faith of the nation by an exact discharge of
      its debts and contracts, expend the public money with the
      same care and economy we would practise with our own, and
      impose on our citizens no unnecessary burdens; to keep, in
      all things, within the pale of our constitutional powers,
      and cherish the Federal Union as the only rock of safety;
      these, fellow-citizens, are the landmarks by which we are
      to guide ourselves in all our proceedings. By continuing to
      make these the rule of our action, we shall endear to our
      countrymen the true principles of their constitution, and
      promote a union of sentiment and of action, equally
      auspicious to their happiness and safety. On my part you
      may count on a cordial concurrence in every measure for the
      public good; and on all the information I possess which may
      enable you to discharge to advantage the high functions
      with which you are invested by your country.

                          TH. JEFFERSON.

      DECEMBER 15, 1802.

The Message and papers therein referred to were read; and

_Ordered_, That five hundred copies of the Message of the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, together with one hundred copies of each of the
papers referred to in the Message, be printed for the use of the Senate.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House have elected the Reverend WILLIAM PARKINSON a Chaplain to
Congress, on their part.


WEDNESDAY, December 22.

DWIGHT FOSTER, from the State of Massachusetts, attended.


THURSDAY, December 23.

Mr. MORRIS, from the State of New York, attended.


MONDAY, December 27.

Mr. HILLHOUSE, from the State of Connecticut, attended.


THURSDAY, December 30.

Mr. ANDERSON, and Mr. COCKE, from the State of Tennessee, severally
attended.


MONDAY, January 3, 1803.

Mr. NICHOLAS, from the State of Virginia, and Mr. WELLS, from the State
of Delaware, attended.


FRIDAY, January 7.

Mr. STONE, from North Carolina, attended.

The PRESIDENT communicated a letter signed T. Worthington, agent for the
State of Ohio, enclosing a copy of the constitution of the said State,
and requesting it might be laid before the Senate; and they were read,
and ordered to lie for consideration.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made on the 5th
instant for extending the laws of the United States to the State of
Ohio, together with the amendment proposed thereon; which amendment was
withdrawn; and it was agreed to adopt the motion, amended as follows:

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether any, and,
if any, what Legislative measures may be necessary for admitting the
State of Ohio into the Union, or for extending to that State the laws of
the United States; and

_Ordered_, That Messrs. BRECKENRIDGE, MORRIS, and ANDERSON, be the
committee, and that the letter signed T. Worthington, agent for the
State of Ohio, laid before the Senate this morning, together with a copy
of the constitution of said State, be referred to the same committee, to
consider and report thereon.

The bill to carry into effect the several resolutions of Congress for
erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals Wooster,
Herkimer, Davidson, and Scriven, was read the third time.

On motion to postpone the further consideration of this bill until the
first Monday in December next, it passed in the negative--yeas 9, nays
17, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge,
      Cocke, Ellery, Nicholas, Sumter, and Wright.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Clinton, Dayton, T. Foster, D. Foster,
      Franklin, Hillhouse, Howard, Jackson, Logan, J. Mason,
      Morris, Olcott, Plumer, Stone, Tracy, Wells, and White.

On the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined in
the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 8, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Clinton, Dayton, T. Foster, D.
      Foster, Franklin, Hillhouse, Howard, Jackson, Logan, J.
      Mason, Morris, Olcott, Plumer, Stone, Tracy, Wells, and
      White.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bradley, Breckenridge, Cocke,
      Ellery, Nicholas, Sumter, and Wright.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and
that the title thereof be "An act to carry into effect the several
resolutions of Congress for erecting monuments to the memories of the
late Generals Wooster, Herkimer, Davidson, and Scriven."


TUESDAY, January 11.

In Executive session, the following Message was received from the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

      _Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      The cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to France,
      and perhaps of the Floridas, and the late suspension of our
      right of deposit at New Orleans, are events of primary
      interest to the United States. On both occasions, such
      measures were promptly taken as were thought most likely
      amicably to remove the present and to prevent future causes
      of inquietude. The objects of these measures were to obtain
      the territory on the left bank of the Mississippi, and
      eastward of that, if practicable, on conditions to which
      the proper authorities of our country would agree; or, at
      least, to prevent any changes which might lessen the secure
      exercise of our rights. While my confidence in our Minister
      Plenipotentiary at Paris is entire and undiminished, I
      still think that these objects might be promoted by joining
      with him a person sent from hence directly, carrying with
      him the feelings and sentiments of the nation, excited on
      the late occurrence, impressed by full communications of
      all the views we entertain on this interesting subject; and
      thus prepared to meet and to improve, to a useful result,
      the counter-propositions of the other contracting party,
      whatsoever form their interests may give to them, and to
      secure to us the ultimate accomplishment of our object.

      I therefore nominate Robert R. Livingston to be Minister
      Plenipotentiary, and James Monroe to be Minister
      Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, with full powers to
      both, jointly, or to either, on the death of the other, to
      enter into a treaty or convention with the First Consul of
      France, for the purpose of enlarging, and more effectually
      securing, our rights and interests in the river
      Mississippi, and in the territories eastward thereof.

      But as the possession of these provinces is still in Spain,
      and the course of events may retard or prevent the cession
      to France being carried into effect, to secure our object,
      it will be expedient to address equal powers to the
      Government of Spain also, to be used only in the event of
      its being necessary.

      I therefore nominate Charles Pinckney to be Minister
      Plenipotentiary, and James Monroe, of Virginia, to be
      Minister Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, with full
      powers to both, jointly, or to either, on the death of the
      other, to enter into a treaty or convention with His
      Catholic Majesty, for the purpose of enlarging, and more
      effectually securing, our rights and interests in the river
      Mississippi, and in the territories eastward thereof.

      JAN. 11, 1803.

                          TH. JEFFERSON.

The Messages and papers therein referred to were read, and ordered that
they severally lie for consideration.


MONDAY, January 17.

Mr. BROWN, from the State of Kentucky, attended.


WEDNESDAY, January 19.

AARON BURR, Vice President of the United States, and President of the
Senate, attended.


THURSDAY, January 20.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a certificate of the election
of SAMUEL M'CLAY, Esq. of Northumberland county, and State of
Pennsylvania, to be a Senator of the United States from the fourth day
of March next, inclusive; and it was read and ordered to lie on file.


MONDAY, January 24.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated a letter from the Clerk of the House of
Representatives of the State of Delaware, enclosing the credentials of
SAMUEL WHITE, Esq., elected a Senator of the United States for the term
of six years, commencing on the 4th day of March next; and they were
read.

_Ordered_, That they lie on file.


WEDNESDAY, January 26.

JAMES ROSS, from Pennsylvania, attended.


THURSDAY, January 27.

Mr. Ross presented the several representations and memorials of Richard
Basset, Egbert Benson, Benjamin Bourne, William Griffith, Samuel
Hitchcock, B. P. Key, C. Magill, Jeremiah Smith, G. K. Taylor, William
Tilghman, and Oliver Wolcott, judges of the circuit courts under the
late act, entitled "An act to provide for the more convenient
organization of the Courts of the United States;" stating that, since
the repeal of the said act, no law had been made for assigning to them
the execution of any Judicial functions, nor has any provision been made
for the payment of their stipulated compensations; and most respectfully
requesting Congress to review the existing laws with respect to the
officers in question; and the memorials were read.

_Ordered_, That they be referred to Messrs. MORRIS, ROSS, and DAYTON, to
consider and report thereon, and that the memorials be printed for the
use of the Senate. The memorial is as follows

      _To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives
      in Congress assembled_:

      The undersigned most respectfully submit the following
      resolution and memorial.

      By an act of Congress passed on the thirteenth day of
      February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
      hundred and one, entitled "An act to provide for the more
      convenient organization of the courts of the United
      States," certain judicial offices were created, and courts
      established, called circuit courts of the United States.

      In virtue of appointments made under the Constitution of
      the United States, the undersigned became vested with the
      offices so created, and received commissions authorizing
      them to hold the same, with the emoluments thereunto
      appertaining, during their good behavior.

      During the last session an act of Congress passed, by which
      the above-mentioned law was declared to be repealed; since
      which no law has been made for assigning to your
      memorialists the execution of any judicial functions, nor
      has any provision been made for the payment of their
      stipulated compensations.

      Under these circumstances, and finding it expressly
      declared in the Constitution of the United States, that
      "The judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall
      hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at
      stated times, receive for their services a compensation
      which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
      office," the undersigned, after the most deliberate
      consideration, are compelled to represent it as their
      opinion, that the rights secured to them by the
      constitution, as members of the Judicial Department, have
      been impaired.

      With this sincere conviction, and influenced by a sense of
      public duty, they most respectfully request of Congress to
      review the existing laws which respect the offices in
      question, and to define the duties to be performed by the
      undersigned, by such provisions as shall be consistent with
      the constitution, and the convenient administration of
      justice.

      The right of the undersigned to their compensations, they
      sincerely believe to be secured by the constitution,
      notwithstanding any modification of the Judicial
      Department, which, in the opinion of Congress, public
      convenience may recommend. This right, however, involving a
      personal interest, will be cheerfully submitted to Judicial
      examination and decision, in such manner as the wisdom and
      impartiality of Congress may prescribe.

      That judges should not be deprived of their offices or
      compensations without misbehavior appears to the
      undersigned to be among the first and best established
      principles of the American constitutions; and in the
      various reforms they have undergone, it has been preserved
      and guarded with increased solicitude.

      On this basis the Constitution of the United States has
      laid the foundation of the Judicial Department, and
      expressed its meaning in terms equally plain and
      peremptory.

      This being the deliberate and solemn opinion of the
      undersigned, the duty of their stations requires that they
      should declare it to the Legislative body. They regret the
      necessity which compels them to make the representation,
      and they confide that it will be attributed to a conviction
      that they ought not voluntarily to surrender rights and
      authorities intrusted to their protection, not for their
      personal advantage, but for the benefit of the community.


THURSDAY, February 3.

_Memorial of Judges._

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate took into consideration
the report of the committee on the several memorials of the judges,
under the late act to provide for the more convenient organization of
the courts of the United States. The committee report as follows:

      That the petitioners were judges of certain courts,
      inferior to the Supreme Court, constituted by an act of the
      13th of February, 1801, and duly commissioned to hold their
      offices during good behavior.

      That, while holding and exercising their offices, an act
      was passed on the 8th of March last, to repeal the said act
      of the 13th of February, 1801, and transfer the duties of
      the said judges from them to others.

      That a question has arisen whether, by reason of the
      premises, the said petitioners be deprived of their
      offices.

      That this question, depending on the construction of the
      laws and Constitution of the United States, is not properly
      cognizable by the Senate.

      The committee, therefore, conceive it improper either to
      give reasons or express opinions; but they consider it as a
      question of high and serious import, and believe that a
      speedy investigation and final decision is of great moment
      to the commonwealth.

      Wherefore, they submit the following resolution.

      _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to cause an information, in the nature of a _quo
      warranto_, to be filed by the Attorney General against
      Richard Basset, one of the said petitioners, for the
      purpose of deciding judicially on their claims.

Mr. MORRIS said, I rise, Mr. PRESIDENT, as chairman of the committee
whose report you have just had the goodness to read, for the purpose of
explaining their reasons. If this were a common or an ordinary occasion,
if no heats had been excited, if there were no unpleasant, no tormenting
recollections, a measure so plain, so easy, so simple, would require
neither argument nor persuasion. It would be adopted for its own
interior evidence, and from the general sense of propriety. Unhappily,
sir, this is not the case. Serious differences of opinion have existed,
and still exist on the subject with which it is connected. From these
have arisen disputes, divisions, bickerings. There is not, I fear, in
the minds of men, that calm impartiality which is needful to fair
investigation. There remains much of prejudice, of irritability.

Your committee have pursued the course which appeared to be proper, not
only in itself, but according to the existent circumstances. Gentlemen
will easily see that they might have made an elaborate report,
containing a long detail of reasons to establish a favorite conclusion;
and a slight knowledge of the forms of business will show, that they
might have placed that report at length on your journals. But would this
have been right? Would it have tended to conciliate? Would it have been
a proper return for the unanimity with which your committee was chosen?
Surely it would not; and is it not the duty of every good citizen to
heal, as far as possible, the wounds of society? To calm those
irritations which disturb its repose? To remove all things which may
alarm, torment, or exacerbate?

Mr. President, your committee have no intention, no wish to revive a
discussion of points already settled. While the act of last session was
in agitation, we opposed it steadily, pertinaciously. But that act has
become a law, and to the authority of the law we bow submissively. While
in suspense, we thought it our duty, as Senators, to oppose it. But
since it has been adopted, according to the forms of the constitution,
we know that as citizens we are bound to obey. With these deep
impressions, then, of what is due to the supreme law of our land, I
shall proceed to the report of your committee, and endeavor to explain
its several parts.

Gentlemen will perceive that the question which the memorialists have
submitted to our investigation is, whether the law of last session has
deprived them of their office of judge. Your committee consider this
question as not being cognizable by the Senate. It is not for the
Senate, nor the Representatives, nor both combined, to interpret their
own acts. We are a part of the Legislature. A part of the Executive
power is also delegated to us. If the Judiciary be added, it will
constitute a tyranny. It is, indeed, the very definition of tyranny
which has been given by those best acquainted with the subject. This
Senate can have no wish to arrogate power. It is too just, too wise. If
a sense of propriety did not prevent, prudence alone would forbid the
attempt. This body is too feeble for the exercise of so much authority.
Its form, its constitution, the mode and manner of its creation and
existence, the strength and structure of its members, render it
incapable of sustaining a greater weight of power.

Your committee, sir, have ventured to express their belief, that the
question should be speedily settled. I learned in early youth, from the
volumes of professional science, that it is expedient for the
Commonwealth that a speedy end should be put to litigation; and if it be
important that litigation should cease between man and man, how much
more important that a litigated point of public right, which interests
and agitates the whole community, should be laid at rest? And if this be
important in the general course of things, is it not, under present
circumstances, indispensable? And how is it to be effected? By an
exertion of Legislative might; by force. Remember, force will excite
resistance. Such is the nature of the human heart. Free citizens revolt
with disdain at the exercise of force. But judgment commands their
prompt, their willing obedience. When the law is known, when it is
declared by the proper tribunals, all will bow to its authority. You,
then, may expect a full, and quiet, and general submission. But while it
is litigated and uncertain what the law is, differences will exist, and
discord will prevail.

It is under these impressions, sir, that your committee have presumed to
offer the resolutions on your table; and as some of the technical terms
may not be familiar to every gentleman, it may be proper to state the
kind of proceeding which is recommended.

The attorney general, or, as he is denominated in French idiom, the
public accuser, will institute, before the proper tribunal, an inquiry
by what authority these men claim to hold and exercise the office of
judge. It will then be incumbent upon them, either to disclaim the
office, and then there is an end of the question; or else (claiming it)
to establish their right. And to do this, they must prove two things;
first, that the office exists, and secondly, that of right it belongs to
them. Failing of either, their claim is gone.

Now, sir, it may be well to consider the decisions which may be made,
and their probable effect. I take it for granted, that these gentlemen,
who have asked a Judicial decision, will not disclaim, and that whatever
judgment may be given in the first instance, the cause will be brought
up to the Supreme Court. If the judgment, in the last resort, should be
(as it probably would be) against the claim, all complaint will be
quieted, and all opposition will cease. Some then, indeed, might
triumph. For my own part, I should find in it great consolation--the
consolation of knowing that, however wrong may have been my own
opinions, the Supreme Legislature of my country have done right. The
pride of opinion might, indeed, be wounded; but God forbid, that from
motives of pride, or from any other motive, I should hear, without deep
concern, that the Legislature of my country have violated that sacred
charter from which they derive their authority!

But suppose an opinion different, contrarient, or the very reverse (for
that also is possible.) Will the judges rudely declare that you have
violated the constitution, unmindful of your duty, and regardless of
your oath? No. With that decency which becomes the Judicial character;
that decency which upholds national dignity and impresses obedience on
the public will; that decency, the handmaid of the graces, which more
adorns a magistrate than ermine, aye, than royal robes; with that
decency which so peculiarly befits their state and condition, they will
declare what the Legislature meant. They will never presume to believe,
much less to declare, that you meant to violate the constitution. There
will be no dangerous and hateful clashing of public authorities. They
will never question the exercise of that high discretion with which you
are invested. They will not deny your full supremacy. They will not
examine into your motives, nor assign improper views. They will respect
you so long as they preserve a due respect for themselves. They will
declare, that in assigning duties to one officer, and taking them from
another, you have to consult only your own convictions of what the
interest or convenience or the people may require. They will modestly
conclude, that you did not mean to abolish the offices which the
constitution had forbidden you to abolish; and, therefore, finding that
it was not your intention to abolish, they will declare that the offices
still exist. Such, sir, would be the language of your supreme Judiciary,
from the high sense they entertain of their duty. And, if it were
decent to suggest in this Senate, that they were lost to a sense of
duty, can it be believed, that a few feeble judges will dare oppose
themselves to the power of the Legislature?

The VICE PRESIDENT rose, and said he must call the attention of the
Senate to the point in discussion, which was, whether the Senate would
request the President to cause a process to be instituted for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioners still hold the office of
judge. On this question, it could not be in order to go back to a law
passed at the last session, and to discuss the merits of that law.

Mr. JACKSON said, it appeared by the memorial that the petitioners
considered themselves as being still judges, notwithstanding the law of
last session. He thought, therefore, it could not be out of order to
show that that act deprived them of their offices.

Mr. WRIGHT premised, that he would endeavor to confine his remarks to
the point before the Senate. He felt no disposition to travel again over
the ground which had been traversed at the last session.

The petition was addressed to both Houses, and prayed for two things;
first, that Congress, in their Legislative capacity, would assign to the
petitioners some Judicial duties; and secondly, that they would
authorize a Judicial investigation of their claim to compensation. The
committee, therefore, ought to have confined their inquiries to these
points, and to have reported accordingly. Instead of that, they had
reported a resolution, which, if adopted, would be neither a grant nor a
denial of the prayer of the petition. In doing this, the committee had
exceeded their powers, and proposed a measure which the Senate itself
was not authorized to adopt.

Mr. W. took a review of the constitutional powers of the Senate, in its
Legislative and Executive capacities, and inquired, Have we any
constitutional authority to make such a request of the President? In
what part of the constitution is such power delegated to this House? Are
we to make the request as private gentlemen, or as a constitutional
organ of the Government. If as private gentlemen, the act would clearly
be a nullity; the President would still be at liberty to comply with the
request, or not, as he might think proper. If as a constitutional organ
of the Government, where is the power given to the Senate? And what
would be the remedy if he should refuse to comply? The Senate is the
constitutional adviser of the President in the formation of treaties,
and in the appointment of officers, &c. The constitution expressly
declares that the President shall exercise these powers by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. Here, then, it is their right and
their duty to advise him. But the constitution further says: "He shall
take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Have the Senate any
authority to advise him as to the faithful execution of the laws? They
can go no further than they are expressly commissioned by the
constitution. The specification of particular Executive powers, by the
constitution, is a denial of all others. _Admissio unius est exclusio
alterius_; and, as the constitution has given no power to this effect,
it follows that no such power can be exercised by the Senate. If the
courts have power to try the validity of laws of Congress, they can
exercise that power as well without the authority of this resolution as
with it. If they have not the power, neither this House nor the
Legislature can give it them. The duties and the powers of the Supreme
Court are defined by the constitution. Should the Senate, then, adopt
the resolution, the Supreme Court would have no power to act under it,
unless that power is given by the constitution. Let us, then, examine
the authority of this court. The constitution says: "In all cases
affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, and those in
which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original
jurisdiction." Will the gentlemen say that these judges are ambassadors,
other public ministers or consuls, or that they are a state? If not, the
Supreme Court can have no jurisdiction of the case, and the committee
have imposed upon the Senate a resolution which they had no authority to
submit. As to the law of the last session, by which these judges had
been deprived of their offices, Mr. W. had no fear that the Supreme
Court, or any body else would attempt to set it aside. The whole nation
has approved the measure, as many of those who opposed it have fatally
experienced.

The question on agreeing to the resolution was now taken, and determined
in the negative--yeas 13, nays 15, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Dayton, Dwight, Foster, Hillhouse, Howard,
      J. Mason, Morris, Ogden, Olcott, Plumer, Ross, Tracy,
      Wells, and White.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge,
      Brown, Clinton, Cocke, Ellery, T. Foster, Jackson, Logan,
      Nicholas, Stone, Sumter, and Wright.

_Ordered_, That the memorialists have leave to withdraw their memorial.


MONDAY, February 14.

_The Mississippi Question._

After the Senate had finished its deliberations upon the Legislative
business before it--

Mr. Ross rose and said, that although he came from a part of the country
where the late events upon the Mississippi had excited great alarm and
solicitude, he had hitherto forborne the expression of his sentiments,
or to bring forward any measure relative to the unjustifiable,
oppressive conduct of the officers of the Spanish Government at New
Orleans. He had waited thus long in the hope that some person, more
likely than himself to conciliate and unite the opinions of a majority
of the Senate, would have offered efficacious measures for their
consideration; but, seeing the session now drawing to a close, without
any such proposition, he could not reconcile a longer silence either to
his own sense of propriety or to the duty he owed to his constituents.
He would not consent to go home without making one effort, however
feeble or unsuccessful, to avert the calamity which threatened the
Western country. Present appearances, he confessed, but little justified
the hope that any thing he might propose would be adopted, yet it would
at least afford him some consolation, hereafter, that he had done his
duty, when the storm was approaching, by warning those who had power in
their hands of the means which ought to be employed to resist it.

He was fully aware that the Executive of the United States had acted;
that he had sent an Envoy Extraordinary to Europe. This was the peculiar
province, and perhaps the duty of the President. He would not say that
it was unwise in this state of our affairs to prepare for remonstrance
and negotiation, much less was he then about to propose any measure that
would thwart negotiation, or embarrass the President. On the other hand,
he was convinced that more than negotiation was absolutely necessary,
that more power and more means ought to be given to the President, in
order to render his negotiations efficacious. Could the President
proceed further, even if he thought more vigorous measures proper and
expedient? Was it in his power to repel and punish the indignity put
upon the nation? Could he use the public force to redress our wrongs?
Certainly not. This must be the act of Congress. They are now to judge
of ulterior measures; they must give the power, and vote the means to
vindicate, in a becoming manner, the wounded honor and the best
interests of the country.

Mr. R. said, he held in his hands certain resolutions for that purpose,
and, before he offered them to the Senate, he would fully explain his
reasons for bringing them forward and pressing them with earnestness, as
the best system the United States could now pursue.

It was certainly unnecessary to waste the time of that body in stating
that we had a solemn explicit treaty with Spain; that this treaty had
been wantonly and unprovokedly violated, not only in what related to the
Mississippi, but by the most flagrant, destructive spoliations of our
commerce, on every part of the ocean, where Spanish armed vessels met
the American flag. These spoliations were of immense magnitude, and
demanded the most serious notice of our Government. They had been
followed by an indignity and a direct infraction of our treaty relative
to the Mississippi, which bore an aspect not to be dissembled or
mistaken.

To the free navigation of that river we had an undoubted right from
nature, and from the position of our Western country. This right, and
the right of deposit in the island of New Orleans, had been solemnly
acknowledged and fixed by treaty in 1795. That treaty had been in
actual operation and execution for many years; and now, without any
pretence of abuse or violation on our part, the officers of the Spanish
Government deny the right, refuse the place of deposit, and add the most
offensive of all insults, by forbidding us from landing on any part of
their territory, and shutting us out as a common nuisance.

By whom has this outrage been offered? By those who have constantly
acknowledged our right, and now tell us that they are no longer owners
of the country! They have given it away, and, because they have no
longer a right themselves, therefore, they turn us out, who have an
undoubted right! Such an insult, such unprovoked malignity of conduct,
no nation but this would affect to mistake. And yet we not only hesitate
as to the course which interest and honor call us to pursue, but we bear
it with patience, tameness, and apparent unconcern.

Sir, said Mr. R., whom does this infraction of the treaty and the
natural rights of this country most intimately affect? If the wound
inflicted on national honor be not sensibly felt by the whole nation, is
there not a large portion of your citizens exposed to immediate ruin by
a continuance of this state of things? The calamity lights upon all
those who live upon the Western waters. More than half a million of your
citizens are by this cut off from a market. What would be the language,
what would be the feelings of gentlemen in this House, were such an
indignity offered on the Atlantic coast? What would they say if the
Chesapeake, the Delaware, or the Bay of New York were shut up, and all
egress prohibited by a foreign power? And yet none of these waters
embrace the interests of so many as the Mississippi. The numbers and the
property affected by shutting this river, are greater than any thing
that could follow by the blockade of a river on the Atlantic coast.
Every part of the Union was equally entitled to protection, and no good
reason could be offered why one part should be less attended to than
another.

Fortunately for this country, there could be no doubt in the present
case; our national right had been acknowledged, and solemnly secured by
treaty. The treaty had been long in a state of execution. It was
violated and denied without provocation or apology. The treaty then was
no security. This evident right was one, the security of which ought not
to be precarious: it was indispensable that the enjoyment of it should
be placed beyond all doubt. He declared it therefore to be his firm and
mature opinion, that so important a right would never be secure, while
the mouth of the Mississippi was exclusively in the hands of the
Spaniards. Caprice and enmity occasion constant interruption. From the
very position of our country, from its geographical shape, from motives
of complete independence, the command of the navigation of the river
ought to be in our hands.

We are now wantonly provoked to take it. Hostility in its most offensive
shape has been offered by those who disclaim all right to the soil and
the sovereignty of that country--a hostility fatal to the happiness of
the Western world. Why not seize then what is so essential to us as a
nation? Why not expel the wrongdoers?--wrongdoers by their own
confession, to whom by a seizure we are doing no injury. Paper
contracts, or treaties, have proved too feeble. Plant yourselves on the
river, fortify the banks, invite those who have an interest at stake to
defend it: do justice to yourselves when your adversaries deny it; and
leave the event to Him who controls the fate of nations.

Why submit to a tardy, uncertain negotiation, as the only means of
regaining what you have lost: a negotiation with those who have wronged
you; with those who declare they have no right, at the moment they
deprive you of yours? When in possession, you will negotiate with more
advantage. You will then be in the condition to keep others out. You
will be in the actual exercise of jurisdiction over all your claims;
your people will have the benefits of a lawful commerce. When your
determination is known, you will make an easy and an honorable
accommodation with any other claimant. The present possessors have no
pretence to complain, for they have no right to the country by their own
confession. The Western people will discover that you are making every
effort they could desire for their protection. They will ardently
support you in the contest, if a contest becomes necessary. Their all
will be at stake, and neither their zeal nor their courage need be
doubted.

Suppose that this course be not now pursued. Let me warn gentlemen how
they trifle with the feelings, the hopes, and the fears of such a body
of men, who inhabit the Western waters. Let every honorable man put the
question to himself; how would half a million round him be affected by
such a calamity, and no prompt measures taken by the Government to
redress it? These men have arms in their hands; the same arms with which
they proved victorious over their savage neighbors. They have a daring
spirit; they have ample means of subsistence; and they have men disposed
to lead them on to revenge their wrongs. Are you certain that they will
wait the end of negotiation? When they hear that nothing has been done
for their immediate relief, they will probably take their resolution and
act. Indeed, from all we have heard, there is great reason to believe
that they will, or that they may have already taken that resolution.

They know the nature of the obstruction, they know the weakness of the
country; they are sure of present success, and they have a bold river to
bear them forward to the place of action. They only want a leader to
conduct them, and it would be strange, if with such means and such a
spirit, a leader should not soon present himself.

Suppose they do go, and do chase away the present oppressors, and that
in the end they are overpowered and defeated by a stronger foe than the
present feeble possessors. They will never return to you, for you cannot
protect them. They will make the best compromise they can with the power
commanding the mouth of the river, who, in effect, has thereby the
command of their fortunes. Will such a bargain be of light or trivial
moment to the Atlantic States. Buonaparte will then say to you, my
French West India colonies, and those of my allies, can be supplied from
my colony of Louisiana, with flour, pork, beef, lumber, and any other
necessary. These articles can be carried by my own ships, navigated by
my own sailors. If you, on the Atlantic coast, wish to trade with my
colonies in those articles, you must pay fifteen or twenty per cent, of
an impost. We want no further supplies from you, and revenue to France
must be the condition of all future intercourse. What will you say to
this? It will be vain to address your Western brethren, and complain
your commerce is ruined, your revenue dwindles, and your condition is
desperate. They will reply that you came not to their assistance in the
only moment you could have saved them; that you balanced between
national honor and sordid interest, and suffered them to be borne down
and subdued, at a time when for a trifle you could have secured the
Mississippi; that now their interest must be consulted, and it forbade
any assistance to you, when following in the same train of ruin which
overwhelmed them. If the evil does not immediately proceed the full
length of disunion, yet the strength, the unity of exertion, the union
of interest will be gone. We are no longer one people, and
representatives from that part of the country in our public councils,
will partake of the spirit and breathe the sentiments of a distinct
nation; they will rob you of your public lands; they will not submit to
taxes; they will form a girdle round the Southern States, which may be
denominated a foreign yoke, and render the situation of that country
very precarious as to its peace and past connections. Indeed, every
aspect of such a state of things is gloomy and alarming to men who take
the trouble of reflecting upon it.

Where is the nation, ancient or modern, that has borne such treatment
without resentment of resistance? Where is the nation that will respect
another that is passive under such humiliating degradation and disgrace?
Your outlet to market closed, next they will trample you under foot upon
your own territory which borders upon theirs! Yet you will not stir, you
will not arm a single man; you will negotiate! Negotiation alone, under
such circumstances, must be hopeless. No. Go forward, remove the
aggressors, clear away the obstructions, restore your possession with
your own hand, and use your sword if resistance be offered. Call upon
those who are most injured, to redress themselves; you have only to give
the call, you have men enough near to the scene, without sending a man
from this side the mountains; force sufficient, and more than
sufficient, for a prompt execution of your orders. If money be an
object, one half of the money which would be consumed and lost by delay
and negotiation, would put you in possession; then you may negotiate
whether you shall abandon it and go out again.

I say, also, let us go and redress ourselves; you will have the whole
nation with you. On no question since the Declaration of Independence,
has the nation been so unanimous as upon this. We have at different
times suffered great indignity and outrages from different European
Powers; but none so palpable, so inexcusable, so provoking, or of such
magnitude in their consequences, as this. Upon none has public opinion
united so generally as this. It is true we have a lamentable division of
political opinion among us, which has produced much mischief, and may
produce much greater than any we have yet felt. On this question, party
spirit ought to sink and disappear. My opinions are well known, and are
not likely to change; but I candidly, and with all possible sincerity,
declare my conviction to be clear, that there will not be a dissenting
voice in the Western country if this course be taken; that so far as my
own abilities go, they shall be exerted to the utmost to support it; and
I know that my friends on this floor with whom I have long thought and
acted, have too high a regard for the national honor, and the best
interests of their country, to hesitate a moment giving the same pledge
of their honest determination to support and render these measures
effectual, if taken: call them ours, if you please, we take the
responsibility, and leave the execution of them with you. For, as to
myself or my friends, no agency is wished, except that of uniting with
you in rousing the spirit, and calling out the resources of the country,
to protect itself against serious aggression, and the total subjection
and loss of the Western country.

Mr. R. then read his resolutions, which are as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That the United States have an indisputable
      right to the free navigation of the river Mississippi, and
      to a convenient place of deposit for their produce and
      merchandise in the island of New Orleans.

      "That the late infraction of such their unquestionable
      right, is an aggression hostile to their honor and
      interest.

      "That it does not consist with the dignity or safety of
      this Union to hold a right so important by a tenure so
      uncertain.

      "That it materially concerns such of the American citizens
      as dwell on the Western waters, and is essential to the
      union, strength, and prosperity of these States, that they
      obtain complete security for the full and peaceable
      enjoyment of such their absolute right.

      "That the President be authorized to take immediate
      possession of such place or places, in the said island, or
      the adjacent territories, as he may deem fit and
      convenient for the purposes aforesaid; and to adopt such
      other measures for obtaining that complete security as to
      him in his wisdom shall seem meet.

      "That he be authorized to call into actual service any
      number of the militia of the States of South Carolina,
      Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, or of the Mississippi
      Territory, which he may think proper, not exceeding fifty
      thousand, and to employ them, together with the military
      and naval forces of the Union, for effecting the objects
      above mentioned.

      "That the sum of five millions of dollars be appropriated
      to the carrying into effect the foregoing resolutions, and
      that the whole or any part of that sum be paid or applied,
      on warrants drawn in pursuance of such directions as the
      President may, from time to time, think proper to give to
      the Secretary of the Treasury."[69]


MONDAY, February 21.

The VICE PRESIDENT communicated the credentials of THEODORUS BAILEY,
appointed a Senator by the State of New York, to take his seat after the
third day of March next; which were read, and ordered to lie on file.


TUESDAY, February 22.

_Purchase of Louisiana._

In Executive session, the bill, entitled "An act making further
provision for the expenses attending the intercourse between the United
States and foreign nations," was read the third time.

On the question, Shall this bill pass? it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 14, nays 12, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge,
      Clinton, Cocke, Ellery, T. Foster, Jackson, Logan, S. T.
      Mason, Nicholas, Sumter, and Wright.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Dayton, D. Foster, Hillhouse, Howard, J.
      Mason, Morris, Olcott, Plumer, Ross, Stone, Wells and
      White.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass.[70]


WEDNESDAY, February 23.

_Mississippi Question._

Mr. WHITE, of Delaware, rose and addressed the Chair as follows: Mr.
President, on this subject, which has on a former day been discussed
with so much ability, and with so much eloquence, by my friend from
Pennsylvania, the honorable mover of the resolutions, I shall submit the
few observations that I may make, in as concise a manner as I am capable
of; for it is very far from my wish to occupy the time or attention of
the Senate unnecessarily. The resolutions on your table I approve of in
their full extent; I believe they express the firm and manly tone that
at this moment is especially becoming the dignity of the Government to
assume; I believe they mark out a system of measures, which, if promptly
pursued, will be honorable to the nation, and equal to the
accomplishment of the important object which gentlemen on all sides seem
to have in view. These alone, with me, would be sufficient inducements
to yield them my feeble support; but in addition to these, and to the
thorough conviction of my own mind as to the course I ought to pursue, I
have the happiness of being supported in my opinions on this subject by
the unequivocal expression of the sentiment of the State to which I have
the honor to belong.

It was early seen, Mr. President, and required but little penetration to
discover, that adventurers emigrating beyond the mountains, and settling
on the Western waters, must possess the free navigation of the
Mississippi, it being their only outlet to the ocean. This important
privilege it became necessary on the part of the Government of the
United States to secure by treaty, and not leave to the capricious will
of whatever nation who might in future hold the territory at the mouth
of the river. Accordingly, in the 4th and 23d articles of our Treaty
with Spain, I find on this subject the following stipulation:

      "ART. 4. It is likewise agreed that the western boundary of
      the United States, which separates them from the Spanish
      colony of Louisiana, is in the middle of the channel or bed
      of the river Mississippi, from the northern boundary of the
      said States to the completion of the 31st degree of
      latitude north of the equator. And His Catholic Majesty has
      likewise agreed that the navigation of the said river, in
      its whole breadth from its source to the ocean, shall be
      free only to his subjects and the citizens of the United
      States, unless he should extend this privilege to the
      subjects of other powers by special convention."

      "ART. 22. The two high contracting parties, hoping that the
      good correspondence and friendship which happily reigns
      between them will be further increased by this treaty, and
      that it will contribute to augment their prosperity and
      opulence, will in future give to their mutual commerce all
      the extension and favor which the advantages of both
      countries may require.

      "And in consequence of the stipulations contained in the
      4th article, His Majesty will permit the citizens of the
      United States, for the space of three years from this time,
      to deposit their merchandise and effects in the port of New
      Orleans, and to export them from thence without paying any
      other duty than a fair price for the hire of the stores;
      and His Majesty promises either to continue this
      permission, if he finds, during that time, that it is not
      prejudicial to the interests of Spain, or if he should not
      agree to continue it there, he will assign to them, on
      another part of the banks of the Mississippi, an equivalent
      establishment."

This instrument, Mr. President, it is known, for a time, quieted the
fears and jealousies of our Western brethren; they supposed it had
removed for ever the possibility of any future embarrassment to their
commerce on those waters. And after it had been proclaimed as the law of
the land--after it had been ratified by both nations, and become
obligatory upon the faith and honor of each, who could have thought
otherwise? Yet, sir, it has happened otherwise. This place of deposit at
New Orleans, secured to our citizens by the article last read, has been
recently wrested from their hands by the authority of the Spanish
Government, and no other equivalent one assigned, where, after more than
two thousand miles of boat navigation, they may disembark their produce
in order to be shipped for sea; and without this advantage the
navigation of the river is to them but an empty name.

I have said, by the authority of the Spanish Government, it has indeed
been given out to the world, for reasons that every man may conjecture,
and are unnecessary to be mentioned, that this was not the act of the
Government, but the rash measure of a single officer--the Intendant
General of the Spanish provinces; that the Spanish Minister had issued
orders for the speedy adjustment of these difficulties; had kindly
offered to throw himself into the breach to prevent this Intendant
General from going to extremities with the Government of the United
States. Sir, gentlemen may find, when too late, that this is a mere
piece of diplomatic policy, intended only to amuse them; and to say
nothing of the humiliating idea of resorting to such a plaster for the
wound that has been inflicted upon our national honor, if they had taken
the trouble, they might have been informed that the Spanish Minister
near this Government has no control at New Orleans; that the Intendant
General is, like himself, an immediate officer of the Crown, and
responsible only to the Crown for his conduct. If the Spanish Minister
has interfered, which I am not disposed to question, to make the best of
it, it could only have been by the entreaties of men in power, as a mere
mediator, to beg of the Intendant General of New Orleans justice and
peace on behalf of the people of the United States. Are honorable
gentlemen prepared to accept peace on such terms? They might do, sir,
for a tribe of starving Indians; but is this the rank that we are to
hold among the nations of the world? And it seems that even these
supplicating advances are likely to avail us nothing. By accounts very
lately received from New Orleans, by a private letter which I have seen
since these resolutions were submitted to the Senate, the Intendant
General has expressed much displeasure at the interference of the
Spanish Minister, stating that it was not within his duty or his
province, and that he, the Intendant, acted not under Spanish but French
orders.

As to the closing of the port of New Orleans against our citizens, the
man who can now doubt, after viewing all the accompanying circumstances,
that it was the deliberate act of the Spanish or French Government, must
have locked up his mind against truth and conviction, and be determined
to discredit even the evidence of his own senses. But, sir, it is not
only the depriving us of our right of deposit by which we have been
aggrieved, it is by a system of measures pursued antecedent and
subsequent to that event, equally hostile and even more insulting. I
have in my hand a paper, signed by a Spanish officer, which, with the
indulgence of the Chair, I will read to the Senate:

      ADVERTISEMENT.--Under date of the 16th instant, (December,)
      the Intendant General of these provinces tells me that the
      citizens of the United States of America can have no
      commerce with His Majesty's subjects--they only having the
      free navigation of the river for the exportation of the
      fruits and produce of their establishments to foreign
      countries, and the importation of what they may want from
      them. As such I charge you, so far as respects you, to be
      zealous and vigilant, with particular care, that the
      inhabitants neither purchase nor sell any thing to the
      shipping, flat-bottomed boats, barges, or any other smaller
      vessels that may go along the river, destined for the
      American possessions, or proceeding from them, that they
      shall be informed of it, for their due compliance of the
      same.

                          CARLOS DE GRANDPRE.

      BATON ROUGE, _Dec. 22, 1802_.

These are the measures, Mr. President, that have been adopted; these are
the orders that have been issued by the Intendant General to every
district of the Spanish provinces, prohibiting the subjects of His
Catholic Majesty from having any commerce, dealing, intercourse, or
communion whatsoever with the citizens of the United States; excluding
us from their shores for the distance of two hundred and seventy miles;
treating us like a nation of pirates, or a banditti of robbers, who
they feared to trust in their country. And this day, sir, if a vessel
belonging to a citizen of the United States, engaged in a fair and legal
trade, was upon the waters of the Mississippi, within the Spanish lines,
and in a state of the most extreme distress, the Spaniard who should
yield her aid or comfort would do it at the peril of his life.

If it should be said, sir, that this important question will not long be
an affair of controversy between the United States and Spain; that
Louisiana, New Orleans, and this usurped claim of the Spanish Government
to the exclusive navigation of the Mississippi, will soon be found in
other hands; that whenever we may have to negotiate on this subject,
either in the cabinet or the field, it will not be with His Catholic
Majesty, but with the First Consul; not with a King, but with the King
of Kings--I answer that in these insults to our national dignity, we at
present know no power but Spain. Whatever agency Buonaparte may have had
in this business, he has been concealed from our view. It is Spain that
has violated her plighted faith; it is Spain that has trampled upon the
dearest interests of the United States, and insulted our Government to
our faces without the semblance of a cause, and she alone is responsible
to us for these outrages. And, under such circumstances, is it becoming,
politic, or honorable in us to treat her as a friend and as a neighbor;
to remonstrate with her on her acts of injustice, and wait till she
shall add insult to insult, and heap injury upon injury; or what is
perhaps even worse, if any thing worse than national degradation can
befall an independent people, till this golden opportunity shall have
passed away, and the facility of redress be wrested from our hands? No,
sir, we should now view her as our open enemy, as having declared war
against us, and do justice to ourselves. We can never have permanent
peace on our Western waters, till we possess ourselves of New Orleans,
and such other positions as may be necessary to give us the complete and
absolute command of the navigation of the Mississippi. We have now such
an opportunity of accomplishing this important object as may not be
presented again in centuries, and every justification that could be
wished for availing ourselves of the opportunity. Spain has dared us to
the trial, and now bids us defiance; she is yet in possession of that
country: it is at this moment within your reach and within your power;
it offers a sure and easy conquest; we should have to encounter there
now only a weak, inactive, and unenterprising people; but how may a few
months vary this scene, and darken our prospects! Though not officially
informed we know that the Spanish provinces on the Mississippi have been
ceded to the French, and that they will as soon as possible take
possession of them. What may we then expect? When in the last extremity
we shall be driven to arms in defence of our indisputable rights, where
now slumbers on his post with folded arms the sluggish Spaniard, we
shall be hailed by the vigilant and alert French grenadier, and in the
defenceless garrison that would now surrender at our approach, we shall
see unfurled the standards that have waved triumphant in Italy,
surrounded by impregnable ramparts, and defended by the disciplined
veterans of Egypt.

But, Mr. President, what is more than all to be dreaded, in such hands,
it may be made the means of access and corruption to your national
councils and a key to your Treasury. Your Western people will see in
Buonaparte, at their very doors, a powerful friend or a dangerous enemy;
and should he, after obtaining complete control over the navigation of
the Mississippi, approach them, not in the menacing attitude of an
enemy, but under the specious garb of a protector and a friend; should
he, instead of embarrassing their commerce by any fiscal arrangements,
invite them to the free navigation of the river, and give them
privileges in trade not heretofore enjoyed; should he, instead of
attempting to coerce them to his measures, contrary to their wishes,
send missionaries into their country to court and intrigue with them, he
may seduce their affections, and thus accomplish by address and cunning,
what even his force might not be equal to. In this way, having operated
upon their passions, having enlisted in his service their hopes and
their fears, he may gain an undue ascendency over them. Should these
things be effected, which God forbid--but Buonaparte in a few years has
done much more--what, let me ask honorable gentlemen, will be the
consequences? I fear even to look them in the face. The degraded
countries of Europe, that have been enslaved by the divisions and
distractions of their councils, produced by similar means, afford us
melancholy examples. Foreign influence will gain admittance to your
national councils; the First Consul, or his interests, will be
represented in the Congress of the United States; this floor may become
the theatre of sedition and intrigue. You will have a French faction in
the Government, and that faction will increase, with the rapidly
increasing population of the Western world. Whenever this period shall
arrive, it will be the crisis of American glory, and must result, either
in the political subjugation of the Atlantic States, or in their
separation from the Western country; and I am sure there is no American
who does not view as one of the greatest evils that could befall us, the
dismemberment of this Union. Honorable gentlemen may wrap themselves up
in their present imaginary security, and say that these things are afar
off, or that they can never happen; but let me beseech of them to look
well to the measures they are now pursuing, for, on the wisdom, the
promptness, and energy of those measures, will depend whether they shall
happen or not. And let me tell them, sir, that the want of firmness or
judgment in the cabinet, will be no apology for the disgrace and ruin of
the nation.

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE observed, that he did not mean to wander in the field
of declamation, nor, after the example of the honorable gentleman who
had preceded him, endeavor to alarm or agitate the public mind; that he
should endeavor to strip the subject of all improper coloring, and
examine dispassionately the propriety of the measures which the Senate
were called upon to sanction. He would be very brief.

What is the true and undisguised state of facts? Early in the session,
the House of Representatives were informed, by a communication from the
President, of the conduct of the Intendant at New Orleans. This
communication stated, that he had taken measures to attempt a
restoration of the right which had been violated; and that there were
reasons to believe that the conduct of the Intendant was unauthorized by
the Court of Spain. Accompanying this message were official papers, in
which it appeared that the Governor of New Orleans had strongly opposed
the conduct of the Intendant, declared that he was acting without
authority in refusing the deposit, and indicated a disposition to oppose
openly the proceeding. The Spanish Minister who resides here, also
interposed on the occasion, and who stands deservedly high in the
confidence of his Government, was clearly of opinion, that the Intendant
was acting without authority, and that redress would be given so soon as
the competent authority could interpose. From this state of things, and
which is the actual state at this moment, what is the course any
civilized nation who respects her character or rights, would pursue?
There is but one course, which is admitted by writers on the laws of
nations, as the proper one; and is thus described by _Vattel_, in his
book, sec. 336, 338:

      "A sovereign ought to show, in all his quarrels, a sincere
      desire of rendering justice and preserving peace. He is
      obliged before he takes up arms, and after having taken
      them up also, to offer equitable conditions, and then alone
      his arms become just against an obstinate enemy, who
      refuses to listen to justice or to equity. His own
      advantage, and that of human society, oblige him to
      attempt, before he takes up arms, all the pacific methods
      of obtaining either the reparation of the injury, or a just
      satisfaction. This moderation, this circumspection, is so
      much the more proper, and commonly even indispensable, as
      the action we take for an injury does not always proceed
      from a design to offend us, and is sometimes a mistake
      rather than an act of malice: frequently it even happens,
      that the injury is done by inferior persons, without their
      sovereign having any share in it; and on these occasions,
      it is not natural to presume that he would refuse us a just
      satisfaction."

This is the course which the President has taken, and in which the House
of Representatives have expressed, by their resolution, their
confidence.

What are the reasons urged by the gentlemen to induce a different
proceeding, an immediate appeal to arms? You prostrate, say the
gentlemen, your national honor by negotiating, where there is a direct
violation of a treaty! How happens it that our national honor has, at
this particular crisis, become so delicate, and that the feelings of
certain gentlemen are now so alive to it? Has it been the practice of
this Government heretofore to break lances on the spot with any nation
who injured or insulted her? Or has not the invariable course been to
seek reparation in the first place by negotiation? I ask for an example
to the contrary; even under the Administration of WASHINGTON, so much
eulogized by the gentleman last up. Were not the Detroit, and several
other forts within our territory, held ten or a dozen years by Great
Britain, in direct violation of a treaty? Were not wanton spoliations
committed on your commerce by Great Britain, by France, and by Spain, to
the amount of very many millions; and all adjusted through the medium of
negotiations? Were not your merchants plundered, and your citizens
doomed to slavery by Algiers, and still those in power, even WASHINGTON
himself, submitted to negotiation, to ransom, and to tribute? Why then
do gentlemen, who on those occasions approved of these measures, now
despair of negotiation? America has been uniformly successful, at least
in settling her differences by treaty.

But the gentleman is afraid that if we do not immediately seize the
country, we shall lose the golden opportunity of doing it. Would your
national honor be free from imputation by a conduct of such
inconsistency and duplicity? A minister is sent to the offending nation
with an olive-branch, for the purpose of an amicable discussion and
settlement of differences, and before he has scarcely turned his back,
we invade the territories of that nation with an army of fifty thousand
men! Would such conduct comport with the genius and principles of our
Republic, whose true interest is peace, and who has hitherto professed
to cultivate it with all nations? Would not such a procedure subject us
to the just censure of the world, and to the strongest jealousy of those
who have possessions near to us? Would such a procedure meet the
approbation of even our own citizens, whose lives and fortunes would be
risked in the conflict? And would it not be policy inexcusably rash, to
plunge this country into war, to effect that which the President not
only thinks can be effected, but is now actually in a train of
negotiation? If, on the other hand, negotiation should fail, how
different will be the ground on which we stand! We stand acquitted by
the world, and what is of more consequence, by our own citizens, and our
own consciences. But one sentiment will then animate and pervade the
whole, and from thenceforth we will take counsel only from our courage.

But to induce us to depart from this proper, this safe, and honorable
course of proceeding, which is pursuing by the President, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania first, and the gentleman from Delaware again told you,
that by such pacific measures you will irritate the Western people
against you; that they will not be restrained by you, but will either
invade the country themselves, or withdraw from the Union and unite with
those who will give them what they want. Sir, said Mr. B., I did not
expect to hear such language held on this floor. Sir, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania best knows the temper and views of the Western people he
represents, but if he meant to extend the imputation to the State I have
the honor to represent, I utterly disclaim it. The citizens of Kentucky
value too highly their rights and character to endanger the one or
dishonor the other. They deal not, sir, in insurrections. They hold in
too sacred regard their federal compact to sport with it. They were
among the first to oppose violations of it, and will, I trust, be the
last to attempt its dissolution. The time indeed was, when not only
irritation but disgust prevailed in that country; when, instead of
sending fifty thousand men to seize on Orleans, an attempt was
meditated, and a solemn vote taken in Congress to barter away this right
for twenty-five years. The time indeed was, when great dissatisfaction
prevailed in that country, as to the measures of the General Government;
but it never furnished there, whatever it might have done elsewhere,
even the germs for treasons or insurrections. The people I have the
honor to represent are not accustomed to procure redress in this way.
Instead of trampling on the constitution of their country, they rally
round it as the rock of their safety. But, unhappily, these times have
passed away. Distrust and dissatisfaction have given place to confidence
in, and attachment to those in whom the concerns of the nation are
confided. I ask no reliance on my opinion for this fact, but appeal to
the memorial of the Legislature of Kentucky to the present Congress, for
the truth of this assertion. In this disposition of mind, therefore, and
from the sound sense and correct views and discernment of their true
interest, which the people of Kentucky possess, I have no hesitation in
pledging myself, that no such precipitate and unwarranted measures will
be taken by them, as predicted by the gentlemen in the opposition.

But he begged leave to ask gentlemen who hold such language, would the
Western people, admitting they were to withdraw from the Union, be able
to accomplish the object? Could they alone go to war with France and
Spain? Could they hold Orleans, were they to take possession of it,
without the aid of the United States? Admitting they could hold it, what
security would they have for their commerce? A single ship of the line
would be able completely to blockade that port. See, also, the Havana,
one of the safest and strongest of the Spanish ports, and so situated as
to possess every advantage in annoying our commerce. Are the gentlemen,
therefore, really serious when they endeavor to persuade us that the
Western people are in such a state of fury and mad impatience that they
will not wait even a few months to see the fate of a negotiation, and,
if unsuccessful, receive the aid of the whole nation, but that they will
madly run to the attack without a ship, without a single cannon, without
magazines, without money or preparation of any kind; and, what is worse,
without union among themselves; and what is still worse, in face of the
laws and constitution of their country? It is impossible. Such a
desperate project could not come to a successful issue; for should they
even obtain the right by their own exertions alone, they could not
expect long to enjoy it in peace, without descending from that exalted,
that enviable rank of one of the independent States of United America,
to the degraded, dependent condition of a colonial department of a
foreign nation.

Although he thought it incumbent on us, for the reasons he had stated,
to try the effect of negotiation, yet, should that fail, he thought it
incumbent on us also to be prepared for another resort. He considered
this right, and upon a different footing from what we ever enjoyed it,
so all-important, so indispensable to the very existence of the Western
States, that it was a waste of words and time to attempt to portray the
evils which a privation of it would produce; and he rejoiced to find
that gentlemen with whom he had not been in the habit of voting on most
political subjects so perfectly accord with him, that our precarious
tenure of it must be changed. He hoped they were sincere in their
declarations. If they were, the only difference between us now is, what
are the proper means to obtain this great end? The course pursued by the
President was, in his opinion, the only true and dignified course. It is
that, and that only, which will certainly attain the object; and is the
only one which will tend to unite cordially all parts of the Union. But
we ought to be prepared, in case of a failure, instantly to redress
ourselves. This, instead of having an evil, would, in his opinion, have
a good effect on the negotiation. It would show, that although we are
willing amicably to adjust our differences, yet that we are not only
resolved on, but prepared for that resort which cannot fail to restore
our violated rights. With that view, he would offer the following
resolutions, as substitutes for those proposed by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.

He moved that the whole of the resolutions be struck out, excepting the
word "_Resolved_," and the following be substituted in their
place--after the word "_Resolved_:"

      "That the President of the United States be, and he is
      hereby authorized, whenever he shall judge it expedient, to
      require of the Executives of the several States to take
      effectual measures to organize, arm, and equip, according
      to law, and hold in readiness to march at a moment's
      warning, eighty thousand effective militia, officers
      included.

      _Resolved_, "That the President may, if he judges it
      expedient, authorize the Executives of the several States,
      to accept, as part of the detachment aforesaid, any corps
      of volunteers; who shall continue in service for such time,
      not exceeding ---- months, and perform such services as
      shall be prescribed by law.

      _Resolved_, "That ---- dollars be appropriated for paying
      and subsisting such part of the troops aforesaid, whose
      actual service may be wanted, and for defraying such other
      expenses as, during the recess of Congress, the President
      may deem necessary for the security of the territory of the
      United States.

      _Resolved_, "That ---- dollars be appropriated for erecting
      at such place or places on the Western waters, as the
      President may judge most proper, one or more arsenals."

Mr. CLINTON.--The importance of a free navigation of the Mississippi has
been duly appreciated by the Government, and a constant eye has been
kept upon it in our negotiations with foreign powers. An attempt was,
indeed, made under the Old Confederation to barter it away for
twenty-five years, which, however, was effectually controlled by the
good sense and patriotism of the Government. By the Treaty of Peace with
Great Britain in 1783, by the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation
with her in 1794, and by the Treaty of Friendship, Limits, and
Navigation with Spain, in 1795, the right of a free navigation of the
Mississippi is recognized, and declared to exist from its source to the
ocean, in the citizens of the United States. By the 22d article of the
Treaty with Spain, it is declared that, "in consequence of the
stipulations contained in the 4th article, his Catholic Majesty will
permit the citizens of the United States, for the space of three years
from this time, to deposit their merchandise and effects in the port of
New Orleans, and to export them from thence without paying any other
duty than a fair price for the hire of the stores. And his Majesty
promises either to continue this permission if he finds during that time
that it is not prejudicial to the interests of Spain; or, if he should
not agree to continue it there, he will assign to them, on another part
of the lands of the Mississippi, an equivalent establishment." The 22d
article, granting the right of deposit, is, therefore, founded upon the
4th article recognizing the right of free navigation, and is intended to
give full and complete efficacy to it. By a proclamation of the
Intendant of the Province of Louisiana, dated the 16th of October last,
the right of deposit is prohibited. The reason assigned for this daring
interdiction is, that the three years for which it was granted having
expired, it cannot be continued without an express order from the King
of Spain; and at the same time no equivalent establishment is assigned,
according to the stipulations of the Treaty.

There can be no doubt but that the suspension of the right of deposit at
New Orleans, and the assignment of another place equally convenient,
ought to have been contemporaneous and concurrent; that the conduct of
the Intendant is an atrocious infraction of the treaty, and that it aims
a deadly blow at the prosperity of the Western States; but it is
extremely questionable whether it was authorized by the Government of
Spain or not. On this subject I am free to declare that I entertain
great doubts, which can only be cleared up by the course of events, or
perhaps it will be enveloped in darkness. On the one hand, the terms of
the proclamation, indicating a misunderstanding of the treaty, the
remonstrances of the Governor of the Province, whose authority does not
extend to commercial and fiscal affairs, over which the Intendant has an
exclusive control, and the prompt and decided assurances of the Spanish
Minister near the United States, would induce a belief that the act of
the Intendant was unauthorized. On the other hand, it cannot readily be
believed that this officer would assume such an immense responsibility,
and encounter an event so big with important consequences, not only to
his country but to himself, without knowing explicitly the intentions of
his Government. Such, then, is the true state of the Spanish aggression:
an important right had been secured to our citizens by the solemnity of
a treaty. This right had been withdrawn by an officer of the Spanish
Government, and whether this aggression was directed by it or not, is
not as yet known. Other aggressions have, indeed, been stated by the
honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. ROSS,) in order to darken
the picture, and with the manifest design of exasperating our feelings,
inflaming our passions, and prompting an immediate appeal to the sword.

As to the nature, character, and tendency of the remedy proposed, there
can be but one opinion. It proposes to enter the country of a foreign
nation with a hostile force, and to seize a part of its territory. It is
not preceded by a formal declaration, and cannot, therefore, come under
the denomination of a solemn war, but it partakes of the character of a
war not solemn. It answers to the definition of war, by _Burlamaqui_, "a
nation taking up arms with a view to decide a quarrel;" to that given by
_Vattel_, who represents it to be "that state in which a nation
prosecutes its right by force." A state of general hostilities would as
necessarily follow as an effect would follow a cause; no nation would
submit to the irruption of a hostile army without repelling it by force;
the proud Castilian, as described by the gentleman from Delaware, would
revolt at the insult; the door of negotiation would be effectually
closed, and as the appeal would be to arms in the first instance, so the
controversy must be finally decided by the preponderance of force. It
would, therefore, not only have impressed me with a more favorable
opinion of the honorable mover's candor, but also of his decision and
energy as a statesman, if he had spoken out boldly, and declared his
real object. War is unquestionably his design--his wish. Why, then, mask
his proposition? Why combine it with considerations connected with
negotiation? Why not furnish the American people at once with the real
and the whole project of himself and his friends? If it is bottomed on
patriotism and dictated by wisdom, it need not shrink from the touch of
investigation--it will receive their approving voice, and be supported
by all their force. The resolution is then to be considered as a war
resolution; in no other light can it be viewed; in no other light ought
it to be viewed; and in no other light will it be viewed by the
intelligence of the country. In this point of view, I will proceed, said
Mr. C., to consider its justice and policy; its conformity with the laws
and usage of nations, and the substantial interests of this country.

I shall not attempt to occupy your attention by threadbare declamation
upon the evils of war, by painting the calamities it inflicts upon the
happiness of individuals, and the prosperity of nations. This terrible
scourge of mankind, worse than the famine or pestilence, ought not to be
resorted to until every reasonable expedient has been adopted to avert
it. When aggressions have been committed by the sovereign or
representatives of a nation, negotiation ought in all cases to be first
tried, unless the rights of self-defence demand a contrary course. This
is the practice of nations, and is enjoined by the unerring monitor
which the God of Nature has planted in every human bosom. What right
have the rulers of nations to unsheath the sword of destruction, and to
let loose the demon of desolation upon mankind, whenever caprice or
pride, ambition or avarice, shall prescribe? And are there no fixed laws
founded in the nature of things which ordain bounds to the fell spirit
of revenge, the mad fury of domination, and the insatiable thirst of
cupidity? Mankind have not only in their individual character, but in
their collective capacity as nations, recognized and avowed in their
opinions and actions, a system of laws calculated to produce the
greatest happiness of the greatest number. And it may be safely
asserted, that it is a fundamental article of this code, that a nation
ought not to go to war, until it is evident that the injury committed is
highly detrimental, and that it emanated from the will of the nation
charged with the aggression, either by an express authorization in the
first instance, or by a recognition of it when called upon for redress,
and a refusal in both cases to give it. A demand of satisfaction ought
to precede an appeal to arms, even when the injury is manifestly the act
of the Sovereign; and when it is the act of a private individual, it is
not imputable to his nation, until his Government is called upon to
explain and redress, and refuses; because the evils of war are too heavy
and serious to be incurred, without the most urgent necessity; because
remonstrance and negotiation have often recalled an offending nation to
a sense of justice, and a performance of right; because nations, like
individuals, have their paroxysms of passion, and when reflection and
reason resume their dominion, will extend that redress to the
olive-branch, which their pride will not permit them to grant to the
sword; because a nation is a moral person, and, as such, is not
chargeable with an offence committed by others, or where its will has
not been consulted, the unauthorized conduct of individuals being never
considered a just ground of hostility, until their sovereign refuses
that reparation for which his right of controlling their actions, and of
punishing their misconduct, necessarily renders him responsible. These
opinions are sanctioned by the most approved elementary writers on the
laws of nations.

If I were called upon to prescribe a course of policy most important for
this country to pursue, it would be to avoid European connections and
wars. The time must arrive when we will have to contend with some of the
great powers of Europe, but let that period be put off as long as
possible. It is our interest and our duty to cultivate peace, with
sincerity and good faith. As a young nation, pursuing industry in every
channel, and adventuring commerce in every sea, it is highly important
that we should not only have a pacific character, but that we should
really deserve it. If we manifest an unwarrantable ambition, and a rage
for conquest, we unite all the great powers of Europe against us. The
security of all the European possessions in our vicinity will eternally
depend, not upon their strength, but upon our moderation and justice.
Look at the Canadas--at the Spanish territories to the South--at the
British, Spanish, French, Danish, and Dutch West India islands--at the
vast countries to the West, as far as where the Pacific rolls its waves;
consider well the eventful consequences that would result if we were
possessed by a spirit of conquest; consider well the impression which a
manifestation of that spirit will make upon those who would be affected
by it. If we are to rush at once into the territory of a neighboring
nation, with fire and sword, for the misconduct of a subordinate
officer, will not our national character be greatly injured? Will we not
be classed with the robbers and destroyers of mankind? Will not the
nations of Europe perceive in this conduct the germ of a lofty spirit
and an enterprising ambition which will level them to the earth, when
age has matured our strength and expanded our powers of annoyance,
unless they combine to cripple us in our infancy? May not the
consequences be, that we must look out for a naval force to protect our
commerce; that a close alliance will result; that we will be thrown at
once into the ocean of European politics, where every wave that rolls,
and every wind that blows, will agitate our bark? Is this a desirable
state of things? Will the people of this country be seduced into it by
all the colorings of rhetoric, and all the arts of sophistry--by
vehement appeals to their pride, and artful addresses to their cupidity?
No, sir. Three-fourths of the American people (I assert it boldly, and
without fear of contradiction) are opposed to this measure. And would
you take up arms with a millstone hanging around your neck? How would
you bear up, not only against the force of the enemy, but against the
irresistible current of public opinion? The thing, sir, is impossible;
the measure is worse than madness; it is wicked beyond the powers of
description.

It is in vain for the mover to oppose these weighty considerations by
menacing us with an insurrection in the Western States, that may
eventuate in their seizure of New Orleans without the authority of
Government; their throwing themselves into the arms of a foreign power;
or in a dissolution of the Union. Such threats are doubly
improper--improper as they respect the persons to whom they are
addressed, because we are not to be deterred from the performance of our
duty by menaces of any kind, from whatever quarter they may proceed; and
it is no less improper to represent our Western brethren as a lawless,
unprincipled banditti, who would at once release themselves from the
wholesome restraints of law and order; forego the sweets of liberty, and
either renounce the blessings of self-government, or, like Goths and
Vandals, pour down with the irresistible force of a torrent upon the
countries below, and carry havoc and desolation in their train. A
separation by a mountain, and a different outlet into the Atlantic,
cannot create any natural collision between the Atlantic and Western
States; on the contrary, they are bound together by a community of
interests, and a similarity of language and manners--by the ties of
consanguinity and friendship, and a sameness of principles. There is no
reflecting and well-principled man in this country who can view the
severance of the States without horror, and who does not consider it as
a Pandora's box, which will overwhelm us with every calamity; and it has
struck me with not a little astonishment that, on the agitation of
almost every great political question, we should be menaced with this
evil. Last session, when a bill repealing a Judiciary act was under
consideration, we were told that the Eastern States would withdraw
themselves from the Union, if it should obtain; and we are now informed
that, if we do not accede to the proposition before us, the Western
States will hoist the standard of revolt and dismember the empire. Sir,
these threats are calculated to produce the evils they predict, and they
may possibly approximate the spirit they pretend to warn us against.
They are at all times unnecessary, at all times improper, at all times
mischievous, and ought never to be mentioned within these walls.

Mr. J. JACKSON, of Georgia.--Coming from a State, at the extreme of the
Union in the South, and excepting the States immediately interested in
the navigation of the Mississippi, the most concerned, on the present
occasion, of any in the Union, he hoped it would not be deemed improper
in him to offer his sentiments on the resolution before the Senate; for,
sir, no event can affect the settlers on the Mississippi, no change of
masters can take place there, without the shock being felt on the
frontiers of Georgia. The nation which holds New Orleans must eventually
possess the Floridas, and Georgia cannot remain an indifferent
spectator; in case of war, the blow struck on that river will be
vibrated on the Saint Mary's, and the attack on the one will be seconded
by an attack on the other.

The gentlemen from Kentucky and Tennessee have not those fears expressed
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania; they have declared their citizens
satisfied with negotiation in the first place, and the conduct pursued
by the Executive. He could say the same, as respects the citizens of the
State he represents, and begged leave to read a letter on the subject,
from a respectable gentleman of Georgia, applauding the appointment of
Mr. Monroe. [He here read a letter expressing the approbation generally
expressed at the nomination.]

That there has been an indignity offered to the United States by the
Spanish Government of New Orleans, he should not deny; so far, he joined
the gentlemen on the other side, as not only to declare that sense of
it, but to assert that the withdrawing the right of deposit, given under
the fourth article of our treaty with Spain, concluded at San Lorenzo el
Real, prior to the pointing out another place for that purpose, is such
a violation of our right, and such an insult to the dignity of the
nation, as ought not to be put up with in silence. We ought, we are
bound to demand a restoration of that right, and to secure it to our
Western citizens, let the risk be what it may, if it even extends to
life and fortune. He cordially agreed with the gentleman who had
preceded him, (Mr. MASON,) that it is a momentous subject; but could not
consent to go at once to war, without trying, in the first place, every
peaceable mode to obtain redress.

The first part of the resolution declares, that the United States have
an indisputable right to the free navigation of the river Mississippi,
and to a convenient place of deposit for their produce and merchandise,
in the island of New Orleans. Now, sir, the former part of this
resolution is not affected by any proceedings of the Spanish Government.
You are as perfectly in possession of the right as you ever were; your
vessels are at this moment freely navigating that river; you have not
heard of a single interruption; you have not learnt that the Spaniards,
so far from interrupting that navigation, have ever doubted your right.
Why then, sir, resolve on the assertion of rights which are not
questioned, but of which you are completely in possession! He could
compare it to no other case than that of a man in private life, in
peaceable possession of his house, resolving on and publishing his own
right to it, and thereby rousing the suspicions of his neighbors to
doubt the title to it. Passing over the latter division of the first
resolution, and which he acknowledged to be the fact, let us consider
the second proposition, "That the late infraction of such their
unquestionable right, is an aggression hostile to their honor and
interest." Sir, after a declaration of this kind, can you retract? You
cannot; it is in fact a declaration of war itself. Many of the courts of
Europe would consider it so, and have engaged in war for less cause of
offence than this resolution contains. You pronounce at once, without
knowing whether the proceedings at New Orleans were sanctioned by the
Court of Spain, that that nation is in a state of hostility against your
honor and interest, which declaration, coupled with the following
resolution, "That it does not consist with the dignity or safety of this
Union to hold a right so important by a tenure so uncertain," is a
direct insult to that nation. But if war is not to be found in those
resolutions, is it not in the fifth resolution, "That the President be
authorized to take immediate possession of such place or places in the
said island, or the adjacent territories, as he may deem fit or
convenient." Is this not war? If it be not, he knew not what war was!
And now let us inquire, if we should be justified in adopting those
measures, on the grounds of public or private justice, or the laws of
nations.

Sir, the going to war has always been considered, even among barbarous
nations, a most serious thing; and it has not been undertaken without
the most serious deliberation. It was a practice among the Romans, prior
to undertaking a war, to consult the _faciales_ on the justice of it;
and, after it had been declared just, to refer it to the Senate, to
judge of the policy of it; and unless the justice and the policy were
both accorded in, the war was not undertaken. If this was the case then
among barbarous nations, shall we, who call ourselves a civilized
nation, not well weigh the justice and the policy of going to war,
before we undertake it?

As to national honor and dignity, he believed we have all a proper sense
of it, and he would be one of the last on this floor to put up with
insult and indignity from any nation; but, as much as we had heard of
it, he did not think we ought, without negotiation, to resent every
injury by war. In many cases, national honor is only a convertible term
for national interest; and he begged leave to relate an anecdote of a
celebrated soldier on this head. After the failure of the attempted
storm of Savannah, in the year 1779, Count D'Estaing, who was wounded in
the attack, and lay in that situation about five miles from Savannah,
was visited by Governor Rutledge and other gentlemen of South Carolina
and Georgia. The Governor having perceived some movements in camp
indicative of a retrogade motion, told the Count that his own honor and
the honor of France were concerned in his remaining and taking the city.
The Count very mildly replied, "Gentlemen, if my honor is to be lost by
not taking the city, it is lost already; but I deem my honor to consist
in the honor of my country, and that honor is my country's interest!"
The time of operation in the West Indies was arrived, and the Count
re-embarked his troops.

Now, sir, is it not our duty to consult our country's interest, before
we take this rash step, which we cannot recall? Peace is the interest of
all republics, and war their destruction; it loads and fetters them with
debt, and entangles not only the present race, but posterity. Peace,
sir, has been the ruling policy of the United States throughout all her
career. If we show the citizens that we are not willing to go to war,
and load them with taxes, they will all be with us, when a necessity for
war arrives. What, sir, was the policy of America, from the commencement
of the Revolution? At that day, did we hastily go to war? No; we tried
every peaceable means to avoid it, and those means induced a unanimity
in the people.

At the commencement many States were exceedingly divided, in some a
majority were against us; yet, seeing the moderation and justice of our
measures, and the rashness and tyranny of the British cabinet, they came
over to our side, and became the most zealous among us. At the present
moment, sir, the people are averse to war, they are satisfied with the
steps of the Executive, they wish negotiation. If you adopt these
resolutions, they will be still divided; if you negotiate, and fail in
that negotiation--if you cannot obtain a redress of the injury which
they feel as well as you, they will go all lengths with you, and be
prepared for any event; you will have this advantage, you will be
unanimous, and America united is a match for the world. In such a case,
sir, every man will be anxious to march, he would go himself if called
on, and whether the sluggish Spaniard or the French grenadier commands
New Orleans, it must fall; they will not be able to resist the brave and
numerous hosts of our Western brethren, who are so much interested in
the injury complained of. He was himself of opinion that New Orleans
must belong to the United States; it must come to us in the course of
human events, although not at the present day; for he did not wish to
use force to obtain it, if we could get a redress of injury; yet it will
naturally fall into our hands by gradual but inevitable causes, as sure
and certain as manufactures arise from increased population and the
plentiful products of agriculture and commerce. But let it be noticed,
that if New Orleans by a refusal of justice falls into our hands by
force, the Floridas, as sure as fate, fall with it. Good faith forbids
encroachment on a pacific ally; but if hostility shows itself against
us, interest demands it; Georgia in such case could not do without it.
God and nature have destined New Orleans and the Floridas to belong to
this great and rising empire. As natural bounds to the South, are the
Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Mississippi, and the world at some
future day cannot hold them from us.


THURSDAY, February 24.

_Mississippi Question._

Agreeably to the order of the day, the Senate resumed the consideration
of the resolutions respecting the indisputable right of the United
States to the free navigation of the Mississippi, together with the
proposed amendments thereto.

Mr. WELLS, of Delaware, said,--Gentlemen have persuaded themselves that
the conduct of the Intendant is not authorized by the Spanish or French
Government; but what reason have they assigned us in support of this
opinion? They tell us of the friendly assurances received from the
Minister of His Catholic Majesty resident near our Government; and they
place considerable stress upon the circumstance of the Governor of New
Orleans disapproving of what the Intendant has done. I will not stop to
speak of the imprudence of reposing themselves upon the assurances of a
Minister, perhaps expressly instructed to mislead them. But why have
they trusted to the imaginary collision of sentiment between the
Governor and Intendant of New Orleans? Do not gentlemen know that our
Government is in possession of testimony, demonstrating beyond all kind
of doubt, that this is not the fact? Have they not seen the letter of
the Governor of New Orleans to the Governor of the Mississippi
Territory? In this letter I learn that the Governor comes out and
acknowledges his co-operation with the Intendant, justifies the breach
of the treaty, and declares that these instruments cease their binding
force the moment it suits the interest of either party to break through
them. Alas! the history of the world furnishes us too many evidences of
this melancholy truth. But this is the first time that any nation has
had the hardihood to avow it. No, sir, even Carthage herself, who became
proverbial for her disregard of treaties, never attained to a point so
profligate. If I am incorrect in my statement, honorable gentlemen, who
have easier access to the sources of official information than is
permitted to us, will set me right. Why has this document been so
sedulously kept from the public eye? Why it should be even now so
carefully locked up, is a mystery not for me to unravel.

I see no other course for us to pursue than that pointed out by the
resolutions. Our interests, our honor, and our safety, require it to be
adopted. I am aware that the alarm of war will be rung through the
country. I know full well the pains that will be taken to impress an
opinion upon our fellow-citizens that we are the friends of war. This we
cannot help: the danger with which our country is threatened, will not
permit us to shrink from the discharge of our duty, let the consequences
to ourselves be what they may. Let me ask you with my honorable friend
from New Jersey, (Mr. DAYTON,) what stronger evidence can we give you of
the sincerity of our intentions than the resolutions themselves? So far
from cramping, or diminishing the power of gentlemen opposed to us, in a
crisis like the present, we only offer to strengthen their own hands.
Had the advice of an honorable gentleman near me (Mr. MORRIS) been
listened to, when you were disbanding your army, this crisis would not
have happened. Had you then posted at the Natchez, as he recommended, a
thousand soldiers, the navigation of the Mississippi would not now have
been interrupted. He foretold you what would happen, and his prediction
has been literally fulfilled.

There is but one fault I find with these resolutions, which is, they do
not go far enough. If I could obtain a second, I would move an amendment
explicitly authorizing the taking possession of both the Floridas as
well as the island of New Orleans. In one respect I entirely accord with
the honorable gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. JACKSON,) and I admire the
manly and decisive tone in which he has spoken upon this subject. We
both agree that the Floridas must be attached to the United States; but
we differ in point of time. The violent aggression committed upon our
rights, and the extent of the danger with which we are threatened, in my
humble opinion, would amply justify our taking possession of them
immediately. Look at the relative situation of Georgia, the Mississippi
Territory, and the Floridas, and it will require very little of the
spirit of prophecy to foretell that we shall, ere long, be compelled to
possess ourselves of them in our own defence.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.--Mr. President, my object is peace. I could
assign many reasons to show that this declaration is sincere. But can it
be necessary to give this Senate any other assurance than my word?
Notwithstanding the acerbity of temper which results from party strife,
gentlemen will believe me on my word. I will not pretend, like my
honorable colleague, (Mr. CLINTON,) to describe to you the waste, the
ravages, and the horrors of war. I have not the same harmonious periods,
nor the same musical tones; neither shall I boast of Christian charity,
nor attempt to display that ingenuous glow of benevolence so decorous to
the cheek of youth, which gave a vivid tint to every sentence he
uttered; and was, if possible, as impressive even as his eloquence. But,
though we possess not the same pomp of words, our hearts are not
insensible to the woes of humanity. We can feel for the misery of
plundered towns, the conflagration of defenceless villages, and the
devastation of cultured fields. Turning from these features of general
distress, we can enter the abodes of private affliction, and behold the
widow weeping, as she traces, in the pledges of connubial affection, the
resemblance of him whom she has lost for ever. We see the aged matron
bending over the ashes of her son. He was her darling; for he was
generous and brave, and therefore his spirit led him to the field in
defence of his country. We can observe another oppressed with
unutterable anguish: condemned to conceal her affection; forced to hide
that passion which is at once the torment and delight of life; she
learns that those eyes which beamed with sentiment, are closed in death;
and his lip, the ruby harbinger of joy, lies pale and cold, the
miserable appendage of a mangled corpse. Hard, hard indeed, must be that
heart which can be insensible to scenes like these, and bold the man who
dare present to the Almighty Father a conscience crimsoned with the
blood of his children.

Yes, sir, we wish for peace; but how is that blessing to be preserved? I
shall here repeat a sentiment I have often had occasion to express. In
my opinion, there is nothing worth fighting for, but national honor; for
in the national honor is involved the national independence. I know that
a State may find itself in such unpropitious circumstances, that
prudence may force a wise government to conceal the sense of indignity.
But the insult should be engraven on tablets of brass, with a pencil of
steel. And when that time and chance, which happen to all, shall bring
forward the favorable moment, then let the avenging arm strike him. It
is by avowing and maintaining this stern principle of honor, that peace
can be preserved. But let it not be supposed that any thing I say has
the slightest allusion to the injuries sustained from France, while
suffering in the pangs of her Revolution. As soon should I upbraid a
sick man for what he might have done in the paroxysms of disease. Nor is
this a new sentiment; it was felt and avowed at the time when these
wrongs were heaped on us, and I appeal for the proof to the files of
your Secretary of State. The destinies of France were then in the hands
of monsters. By the decree of Heaven she was broken on the wheel, in the
face of the world, to warn mankind of her folly and madness. But these
scenes have passed away. On the throne of the Bourbons is now seated the
first of the Gallic Cæsars. At the head of that gallant nation is the
great--the greatest--man of the present age. It becomes us well to
consider his situation. The things he has achieved, compel him to the
achievement of things more great. In his vast career, we must soon
become objects to command attention. We too, in our turn, must contend
or submit. By submission we may indeed have peace, alike precarious and
ignominious. But is this the peace which we ought to seek? Will this
satisfy the just expectation of our country? No. Let us have peace
permanent, secure, and, if I may use the term, independent. Peace which
depends, not on the pity of others, but on our own force. Let us have
the only peace worth having, a peace consistent with honor.

Before I consider the existing state of things, let me notice what
gentlemen have said in relation to it. The honorable member from
Kentucky has told us, that indeed there is a right arrested, but
whether by authority or not is equivocal. He says the representative of
Spain verily believes it to be an unauthorized act. My honorable
colleague informs us there has been a clashing between the Governor and
Intendant. He says we are told by the Spanish Minister it was
unauthorized. Notwithstanding these assurances, however, my honorable
colleague has, it seems, some doubts; but nevertheless he presumes
innocence, for my colleague is charitable. The honorable member from
Maryland goes further. He tells us the Minister of Spain says, the
Intendant had no such authority, and the Minister of France, too, says
there is no such authority. Sir, I have all possible respect for those
gentlemen, and every proper confidence in what they may think proper to
communicate. I believe the Spanish Minister has the best imaginable
disposition to preserve peace; being indeed the express purpose for
which he was sent among us. I believe it to be an object near to his
heart, and which has a strong hold upon his affections. I respect the
warmth and benevolence of his feelings, but he must pardon me that I am
deficient in courtly compliment; I am a republican, and cannot commit
the interests of my country to the goodness of his heart.

What is the state of things? There has been a cession of the island of
New Orleans and of Louisiana to France. Whether the Floridas have also
been ceded is not yet certain. It has been said, as from authority, and
I think it probable. Now, sir, let us note the time and the manner of
this cession. It was at or immediately after the treaty of Lunéville, at
the first moment when France could take up a distant object of
attention. But had Spain a right to make this cession without our
consent? Gentlemen have taken it for granted that she had. But I deny
the position. No nation has a right to give to another a dangerous
neighbor without her consent. This is not like the case of private
citizens, for there, when a man is injured, he can resort to the
tribunals for redress; and yet, even there, to dispose of property to
one who is a bad neighbor is always considered as an act of unkindness.
But as between nations, who can redress themselves only by war, such
transfer is in itself an aggression. He who renders me insecure; he who
hazards my peace, and exposes me to imminent danger, commits an act of
hostility against me, and gives me the rights consequent on that act.
Suppose Great Britain should give to Algiers one of the Bahamas, and
contribute thereby to establish a nest of pirates near your coasts,
would you not consider it as an aggression? Suppose, during the late
war, you had conveyed to France a tract of land along Hudson's River,
and the northern route by the Lakes into Canada, would not Britain have
considered and treated it as an act of direct hostility? It is among the
first limitations to the exercise of the rights of property, that we
must so use our own as not to injure another; and it is under the
immediate sense of this restriction that nations are bound to act
toward each other.

But it is not this transfer alone. There are circumstances both in the
time and in the manner of it which deserve attention. A gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. WRIGHT) has told you, that all treaties ought to be
published and proclaimed for the information of other nations. I ask,
was this a public treaty? No. Was official notice of it given to the
Government of this country? Was it announced to the President of the
United States, in the usual forms of civility between nations who duly
respect each other? It was not. Let gentlemen contradict me if they can.
They will say perhaps that it was the omission only of a vain and idle
ceremony. Ignorance may indeed pretend that such communication is an
empty compliment, which, established without use, may be omitted without
offence. But this is not so. If these be ceremonies, they are not vain,
but of serious import, and are founded on strong reason. He who means me
well acts without disguise. Had this transaction been intended fairly,
it would have been told frankly. But it was secret because it was
hostile. The First Consul, in the moment of terminating his differences
with you, sought the means of future influence and control. He found and
secured a pivot for that immense lever, by which, with potent arm, he
means to subvert your civil and political institutions. Thus, the
beginning was made in deep hostility. Conceived in such principles, it
presaged no good. Its bodings were evil, and evil have been its fruits.
We heard of it during the last session of Congress, but to this hour we
have not heard of any formal and regular communication from those by
whom it was made. Has the King of Spain, has the First Consul of France,
no means of making such communication to the President of the United
States? Yes, sir, we have a Minister in Spain; we have a Minister in
France. Nothing was easier, and yet nothing has been done. Our First
Magistrate has been treated with contempt; and through him our country
has been insulted.

With that meek and peaceful spirit now so strongly recommended, we
submitted to this insult, and what followed? That which might have been
expected; a violation of our treaty. An open and direct violation by a
public officer of the Spanish Government. This is not the case cited
from one of the books. It is not a wrong done by a private citizen,
which might, for that reason, be of doubtful nature. No; it is by a
public officer,--that officer, in whose particular department it was to
cause the faithful observance of the treaty which he has violated. We
are told indeed that there was a clashing of opinion between the
Governor and the Intendant. But what have we to do with their domestic
broils? The injury is done, we feel it. Let the fault be whose it may,
the suffering is ours. But, say gentlemen, the Spanish Minister has
interfered to correct this irregular procedure. Sir, if the Intendant
was amenable to the Minister, why did he not inform him of the step he
was about to take, that the President of the United States might
seasonably have been apprised of his intention, and given the proper
notice to our fellow-citizens? Why has he first learnt this offensive
act from those who suffer by it? Why is he thus held up to contempt and
derision? If the Intendant is to be controlled by the Minister, would he
have taken a step so important without his advice? Common sense will say
no. But, the bitter cup of humiliation was not yet full. Smarting under
the lash of the Intendant, the Minister soothes you with assurances, and
sends advice-boats to announce your forbearance. But while they are on
their way, new injury and new insult are added. The Intendant, as if
determined to try the extent of your meekness, forbids to your citizens
all communication with those who inhabit the shores of the Mississippi.
Though they should be starving, the Spaniard is made criminal who should
give them food. Fortunately, the waters of the river are potable, or
else we should be precluded from the common benefits of nature, the
common bounty of heaven. What then, I ask, is the amount of this savage
conduct? Sir, it is war. Open and direct war. And yet gentlemen
recommend peace, and forbid us to take up the gauntlet of defiance. Will
gentlemen sit here and shut their eyes to the state and condition of
their country? I shall not reply to what has been said respecting
depredations on commerce, but confine myself to objects of which there
can be no shadow of doubt. Here is a vast country given away, and not
without danger to us. Has a nation a right to put these States in a
dangerous situation? No, sir. And yet it has been done, not only without
our consent previous to the grant, but without observing the common
forms of civility after it was made. Is that wonderful man who presides
over the destinies of France, ignorant or unmindful of these forms? See
what was done the other day. He directed his Minister to communicate to
the Elector of Bavaria, his intended movements in Switzerland, and their
object. He knew the Elector had a right to expect that information,
although the greater part of Swabia lies between his dominions and
Switzerland. And this right is founded on the broad principles already
mentioned.

Having thus considered the effect of this cession upon the United
States, in a general point of view, let us now examine it more
particularly, as it regards the greater divisions of our country, the
Western, the Southern, the Middle, and the Eastern States. I fear, sir,
I shall detain you longer than I intended, certainly longer than the
light of day will last, notwithstanding my effort to comprise what I
have to say in the smallest compass. As to the Western States, the
effects will be remote and immediate. Those more remote may be examined
under the twofold aspect of peace and war. In peace they will suffer
the diminution of price for their produce. The advantage of supplying
the French, Dutch, and Spanish colonies, may at first sight lead to a
different opinion; but when the port of New Orleans is shut to all but
French ships, there will no longer be that competition which now exists,
and which always results in the highest price that commodities can bear.
The French merchants have neither the large capital, nor have they the
steady temper and persevering industry which foster commerce. Their
invariable object in trade, is to acquire sudden wealth by large profit;
and if that cannot be done, they abandon the pursuit for some new
project. Certain of the market, and certain of the increasing supply,
they will prescribe the price, both to those who cultivate, and to those
who consume. Such will be the effect in peace.

In a war with Great Britain, the attention of her fleets to cut off
supplies from her enemies, must necessarily affect the price of produce
in a still greater degree; and in a war with France it will bear no
price at all, until New Orleans shall be wrested from their grasp. Add
to this the danger and the devastation from the troops of that country,
aided by innumerable hosts of savages from the Western wilds. Such being
the evident effects to be produced in times not far remote, the present
evil follows from the anticipation of them. The price of land must be
reduced, from the certainty that its produce will become less valuable.
The flood of emigration to those fertile regions must cease to flow. The
debts incurred in the hope of advantageous sales, must remain unpaid.
The distress of the debtor must then recoil on his creditor, and, from
the common relations of society, become general.

What will be the effect on the Southern States? Georgia, Carolina, and
the Mississippi Territory are exposed to invasion from the Floridas and
New Orleans. There are circumstances in that portion of America which
render the invasion easy, and the defence difficult. Pensacola, though
the climate be warm, is among the healthiest spots on earth. Not only a
large garrison, but an army may remain there without hazard. At
Pensacola and St. Augustine, forces may be assembled to operate in that
season of the year, when the morasses which separate them from our
southern frontier no longer breathe pestilence. By what are those armies
to be opposed? Will you call the militia from the North to assist their
Southern brethren? They are too remote. Will you secure their seasonable
aid, bring them early to the fields they are ordered to defend? They
must perish. The climate, more fatal than the sword, will destroy them
before they see their foe. The country adjoining to our Southern
frontier is now in possession of the most numerous tribes of savages we
are acquainted with. The access to it from New Orleans and the Floridas
is easy and immediate. The toys and gewgaws manufactured in France, will
be scattered in abundance, to win their affections, and seduce them
from their present connection. The talents of the French to gain the
good will of the savages is well known, and the disposition of those
uncultured men for war, is equally notorious. Here then is a powerful
instrument of destruction, which may be used against you with ruinous
effect. Besides, what is the population of the Southern States? Do you
not tremble when you look at it? Have we not within these few days
passed a law to prevent the importation of certain dangerous characters?
What will hinder them from arriving in the Floridas, and what can guard
the approach from thence to our Southern frontier? These pernicious
emissaries may stimulate with a prospect of freedom the miserable men
who now toil without hope. They may excite them to imitate a fatal
example, and to act over those scenes which fill our minds with horror.
When the train shall be laid; when the conspiracy shall be ripe; when
the armies of France shall reach your frontier, the firing of the first
musket will be a signal for general carnage and conflagration. If you
will not see your danger now, the time must soon arrive when you shall
feel it. The Southern States being exposed to such imminent danger,
their Representatives may be made to know, that a vote given in Congress
shall realize the worst apprehensions. You will then feel their danger
even on this floor.

Let us now consider the consequence of the cession we complain of, to
other nations, and this we may do generally, and then more especially as
to those who have a direct and immediate interest in the transaction. In
a general view, the first prominent feature is the colossal power of
France. Dangerous to Europe and to the world, what will be the effect of
a great increase of that power? Look at Europe! One half of it is
blotted from the list of empire. Austria, Russia, Prussia, and Britain,
are the only powers remaining, except Sweden and Denmark, and they are
paralyzed. Where is Italy, Switzerland, Flanders, and all Germany west
of the Rhine? Gone; swallowed up in the empire of the Gauls. Holland,
Spain, Portugal, reduced to a state of submission and dependence. What
is the situation of the powers that remain? Austria is cut off from
Italy, the great object of her ambition for more than three centuries;
long the rival of France, long balancing with the Bourbons the fate of
Europe, she must now submit, and tacitly acknowledge to the world the
superiority of her foe, and her own humiliation. Prussia, under the
auspices of the Great Frederick, was at the head of a Germanic league to
balance the imperial power. Though united with Austria for a moment in
the hollow league of the coalition, she has, like Austria, been actuated
by a blind jealousy, and favoring the operations of France for the ruin
of her rival, expected to share largely in the general spoil. In this
fond hope she is disappointed; she now sees the power of France at her
door. There is not a fortress from the Rhine to the Baltic, except
Magdeburgh, which the First Consul may leave on his left. The fertile
plains near Leipsic contain the magazines for his armies when he shall
think proper to march to Berlin. Westphalia and Lower Saxony are open on
the side of Flanders and Holland. The Maine presents him a military road
to the borders of Bohemia. By the Necker he approaches Ulm, and
establishes himself on the Danube.[71] These rivers enable him to take
the vast resources of his wide domain to the point where he may wish to
employ them. Menacing at pleasure his neighbors, he is himself secured
by a line of fortresses along his whole frontier. Switzerland, which was
the only feeble point of his defence, and which separated his Gallic and
Italian dominions, has lately been subjected. The voice you now hear,
warned the Swiss of their fate more than eight years ago. The idea
seemed then extravagant; but realized, it appears but as a necessary
incident. Russia is deprived of her influence in Germany, and thereby of
a principal instrument by which her policy might operate on the great
powers of the South. The Germanic body is indeed in the hand of the
First Consul. Three new Electors along the Rhine are under the mouths of
his cannon. They dare not speak. Speak! None dare speak. They dare not
_think_ any thing inconsistent with his wishes. Even at their courtly
feasts they sit like Damocles, destruction suspended over their heads by
a single hair. Would you know the sentiment of England? Look at the
debates. In the two Houses of Parliament they speak their fears. Such
being the general sentiment of Europe, can it be supposed that they will
view without anxiety a new extension of that power and dominion, the
object of their hatred and apprehension?

Will it be said that there is a security to the freedom of mankind from
the moderation with which this enormous power is to be exercised? Vain
delusion! This power is not the result of accident. At the moment when
France dethroned her sovereign, it was easy to foresee that a contest
must ensue in which her existence would be staked against the empire of
the world. If not conquered by surrounding princes, (and the hope of
such conquest, unless by the aid of her own citizens, was idle,) her
numerous armies acquiring discipline must eventually conquer. She had
the advantages of situation, and those which result from union, opposed
to councils uncertain and selfish. It was easy also to foresee that, in
the same progress of events, some fortunate soldier would seat himself
on the vacant throne; for the idea of a French Republic was always a
ridiculous chimera. Buonaparte has placed himself at the head of that
nation by deeds which cast a lustre on his name. In his splendid career
he must proceed. When he ceases to act he will cease to reign. Whenever
in any plan he fails, that moment he falls. He is condemned to
magnificence. To him are forbidden the harmonies and the charities of
social life. He commands a noble and gallant nation, passionately fond
of glory. That nation stimulates him to glorious enterprise, and,
because they are generous and brave, they ensure his success. Thus the
same principle presents at once the object and the means. Impelled by
imperious circumstances, he rules in Europe, and he will rule here also,
unless by vigorous exertion you set a bound to his power.

I have trespassed on your patience more than I wished, although, from
the lateness of the hour, much has been omitted of what I ought to have
said. I have endeavored to show that, under the existing circumstances,
we are now actually at war, and have no choice but manly resistance or
vile submission. That the possession of this country by France is
dangerous to other nations, but fatal to us. That it forms a natural and
necessary part of our empire; that, to use the strong language of the
gentleman near me, it is joined to us by the hand of the Almighty, and
that we have no hope of obtaining it by treaty. If, indeed, there be any
such hope, it must be by adopting the resolutions offered by my
honorable friend. Sir, I wish for peace--I wish the negotiation may
succeed, and therefore I strongly urge you to adopt those resolutions.
But though you should adopt them, they alone will not ensure success. I
have no hesitation in saying that you ought to have taken possession of
New Orleans and the Floridas the instant your treaty was violated. You
ought to do it now. Your rights are invaded--confidence in negotiation
is vain; there is therefore no alternative but force. You are exposed to
imminent present danger. You have the prospect of great future
advantage. You are justified by the clearest principles of right. You
are urged by the strongest motives of policy. You are commanded by every
sentiment of national dignity. Look at the conduct of America in her
infant years, when there was no actual invasion of right, but only a
claim to invade. She resisted the claim; she spurned the insult. Did we
then hesitate? Did we then wait for foreign alliance? No; animated with
the spirit, warmed with the soul of freedom, we threw our oaths of
allegiance in the face of our sovereign, and committed our fortunes and
our fate to the God of battles. We then were subjects. We had not then
attained to the dignity of an independent Republic. We then had no rank
among the nations of the earth. But we had the spirit which deserved
that elevated station. And now that we have gained it, shall we fall
from our honor?

Sir, I repeat to you that I wish for peace--real, lasting, honorable
peace. To obtain and secure this blessing, let us by a bold and decisive
conduct convince the Powers of Europe that we are determined to defend
our rights; that we will not submit to insult; that we will not bear
degradation. This is the conduct which becomes a generous people. This
conduct will command the respect of the world. Nay, sir, it may rouse
all Europe to a proper sense of their situation. They see that the
balance of power on which their liberties depend, is, if not destroyed,
in extreme danger. They know that the dominion of France has been
extended by the sword over millions who groan in the servitude of their
new masters. These unwilling subjects are ripe for revolt. The empire of
the Gauls is not like that of Rome, secured by political institutions.
It may yet be broken. But whatever may be the conduct of others, let us
act as becomes ourselves. I cannot believe with my honorable colleague,
that three-fourths of America are opposed to vigorous measures. I cannot
believe that they will meanly refuse to pay the sums needful to
vindicate their honor and support their independence. Sir, this is a
libel on the people of America. They will disdain submission to the
proudest sovereign on earth. They have not lost the spirit of
seventy-six. But, sir, if they are so base as to barter their rights for
gold, if they are so vile that they will not defend their honor, they
are unworthy of the rank they enjoy, and it is no matter how soon they
are parcelled out among better masters.


FRIDAY, February 25.

_Mississippi Question._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolutions respecting the
indisputable right of the United States to the free navigation of the
Mississippi, together with the proposed amendment thereto.

Mr. ANDERSON (of Tennessee) said he rose with much diffidence, after the
very able discussion which the subject had already undergone; after so
many men distinguished among the first in our country had treated it
with so much ability, he could not expect to furnish many new facts or
observations on the subject. But coming from that part of the country
which is particularly interested in the discussion, he felt himself
particularly bound to offer a few remarks, which some erroneous
statements that had fallen in debate, from the gentleman from Delaware,
(Mr. WHITE,) particularly called for. He would, while he was up,
endeavor to add a few observations on the resolutions.

The first of the resolutions appeared to him to be introduced merely
with a view to involve the members who were opposed to hostile measures
in a dilemma. It was the assertion of a truth which no one would deny,
but it was connected with other resolutions or assertions, which must
from propriety bring the whole under a negative vote. Taking the naked
proposition that we have a right to the place of deposit, we all agree;
that it has been suspended, we are equally agreed; but there we stop; by
prefacing their resolutions with these truths, they expect either to
induce us to vote for other things repugnant to our judgment, or afford
room for the imputation of wrong motives and clamor abroad. But we are
not to be led astray in this way, nor are the people of this country to
be so deceived. On the first organization of the Government, the most
earnest attention was directed to that river; and it is now as much an
object of the care of Government as at any period since we have been an
independent people. Gentlemen have not, therefore, represented the
matter with that candor which the seriousness of the subject demanded.
The navigation of the Mississippi has not been infringed on the present
occasion, though the arguments of all, and the assertions of some, went
to the extreme on that point. The river, he repeated, was and continues
to be open, and he could not discover the utility of our declaring our
right to the free navigation when we are in full unmolested possession
of the right. He could indeed discover something beside utility; he
could see a design nowise founded. The gentlemen expected with them the
votes of the Western members; they expected to play upon our passions,
and to place us between the danger of unpopularity and the sense of
personal feeling, in a case of a critical nature. But gentlemen would
find themselves mistaken to the utmost; though he felt himself, in
common with other Western members, responsible to his constituents, yet
he would on all occasions where the sense of right impressed itself
strongly on him, risk popularity to do right. On this occasion he saw no
danger of his popularity, because, although he was aware that the people
whom he represented were dissatisfied, they respected their Government
and themselves too much to countenance any means that were not honorable
and just, to obtain the deposit right.

The resolutions called upon us to declare the deprivation of the right
of deposit to be hostile to our honor and interests. On this there were
a variety of opinions; and it appears to be agreed (for it was not
contradicted by any) that the act of an individual unauthorized cannot
be either a cause of war, or the act of the government of which he is an
officer. No gentleman has positively declared the act to be authorized
by Spain. We have the best evidence that the case will admit of, that it
has not been authorized. As the act of an individual, therefore, it
cannot affect the honor of this country. That her interests are affected
is agreed on all hands; but then the due course of proceeding has been
adopted, and redress is to be expected. If it should be denied us, we
have our remedy, and it is then that it will become a point of honor.
But now, as had been well said by his friend from Georgia, (Mr.
JACKSON,) if we were to rashly declare the act of the individual
contrary to our national honor, we could not retrograde; and if Spain
should not do us justice, he trusted that we should then take our strong
ground, and not give way a step. This would be the effect. Gentlemen do
not know the American character--they underrate it: there is not that
levity in it which gentlemen suppose, capable of being lightly led
astray. The character of America is fixed, and when real necessity calls
for their exertions, the people will require no artificial excitement.

From time to time, he had heard in that House and in other places, the
most wanton and cruel aspersions cast upon the people of the Western
country. He knew not how gentlemen could reconcile their pretensions of
regard for the Western people with the odious imputations which were
constantly cast upon their attachment. The whole of the opposition
appeared to concur in their illiberality towards the Western people, at
the very moment they were professing so much zeal for their good. The
late President of the United States had in the most unwarrantable manner
told him, that the Western people were ready to hold out their hands to
the first foreigner that should offer them an alliance; the same
sentiment is echoed here, only in different terms. But such vile
imputations attach not to the Western people, but to those who employed
them. The Western people are Americans, who wasted the spring-tide and
summer of their days in the cause of their country; men who, having
spent their patrimony in establishing their country's independence,
travelled to the wilderness, to seek a homestead for themselves and
children. Was it honorable, was it consistent with those labored efforts
for their good, which we are told actuate gentlemen, to calumniate them
in so unworthy a fashion? Gentlemen appear by their gestures to deny
that they have been guilty of this calumny. But my charge against them
is not of that evasive or double character which they deal in; the words
they have used I have taken down--they are; "The French would draw the
Western people into an alliance," "The Western people would be
influenced by the insidious emissaries of France," "Corruption would
find its way among them, and be transferred even to that floor." Is this
not calumny of the darkest hue? Is this the way in which six hundred
thousand men are to be stigmatized? Men, a greater proportion of whom
are soldiers who fought for the independence of America, than ever was
to be found in the whole State (Delaware) to which the gentleman
belongs.

During twelve years, eight of which one of the first men the world ever
saw, or perhaps ever will see, presided over our affairs, the policy of
pacific negotiation prevailed in our councils; a policy somewhat more
hostile in its aspect was attempted by his successor, but still
negotiation succeeded negotiation, and success attended perseverance. In
the early stages of our existence, before we were yet a nation, it is
indeed true that we drank of the cup of humiliation, even to the dregs;
it was the natural effect of our dependent situation; of the prejudices
that bound us, and from which great violence was necessary, and was
employed to detach us. Such humiliation would not befit us now; no
motives exist to demand or justify it: we were then a part of another
nation, and connected with another Government; we began by petition in
the terms of abjectness and humility, which are incidental to subjects
of monarchs; which are always necessary, in order to conceal the spirit
and the presumption, of which monarchs are always jealous in their
subjects; but abject as we appeared, the very temper and phrase of
humility deceived our oppressor into a belief that we were too lowly to
entertain the manly temper of resistance against oppression. Yet our
precursory and reiterated humility did not unnerve our arms nor subdue
our minds, when it became necessary to fling off the trammels of
oppression. The result, we now enjoy. When that very power from which we
had detached ourselves, refused to carry her treaty into execution, did
we then go to war? She held several of our fortresses; we were entitled
by every right of nature, and the usage of nations, to seize upon them;
not like the right of deposit, a privilege enjoyed on the territory of
another, but fortresses held, and in military array on our own
territory. Did we then make war? No, we negotiated; and when another
power subsequently attacked us, we pursued the same course with the like
success. The gentleman (Mr. ROSS) has told us that when President
WASHINGTON came into office, he would not have negotiated for the
Mississippi, had he not found the negotiation already begun. The
gentleman has not told us upon what authority he states this, or how he
came to possess the knowledge of a fact of which all others are
ignorant; a fact, too, contradictory of his practice through life, and
of the principles of that legacy which he left to his country.

Mr. S. T. MASON, said, that if he were to consult the state of his
health, he should not trouble the Senate with any remarks on the
resolutions before them. But he had heard in the course of debate,
certain observations, such strange and paradoxical arguments;
insinuations and assertions of such a nature as ought not to be passed
unnoticed. Doubtful whether his strength would sustain him through the
whole scope which in better health he should take, he would endeavor to
limit his arguments to a few of the most prominent particulars, which
excited his attention, and to the delivery of his reasons for preferring
the substitute propositions of his friend from Kentucky, (Mr.
BRECKENRIDGE,) to the original resolutions of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.

He had heard, in the debate, many professions of confidence in the
Executive. He was very glad to hear such unusual expressions from that
quarter. However, it was entitled to its due weight--what that was he
would not inquire; but this he would say, that this unexpected
ebullition of confidence went very much farther than he should be
disposed to carry his confidence in any man or any President whatever.
Gentlemen tell us that they are willing to intrust to the Executive the
power of going to war, or not, at his discretion. Wonderful indeed is
this sudden disposition to confidence? Why do not gentlemen give away
that which they have some authority or right to bestow? Who gave them
the power to vest in any other authority than in Congress the right of
declaring war? The framers of this constitution had too much experience
to intrust such a power to any individual; they early and wisely
foresaw, that though there might be men too virtuous to abuse such a
power, that it ought not to be intrusted to any; and nugatory would be
the authority of the Senate, if we could assume the right of
transferring our constitutional functions to any man or set of men. It
was a stretch of confidence which he would not trust to any President
that ever lived, or that will live. He could not as one, without treason
to the constitution, consent ever to relinquish the right of declaring
war to any man, or men, beside Congress.

We are told that negotiation is not the course which is proper for us to
pursue. But to this he should reply, that such was the usage of all
civilized nations; and, however gentlemen might attempt to whittle away
the strong ground taken by his friend from New York, he had shown, in a
manner not to be shaken, that negotiation before a resort to the last
scourge of nations, is the course most consistent with good policy, as
well as with universal practice. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had
indeed told us that Great Britain had departed from that practice;
unfortunately for Great Britain and the gentleman's argument, he told
us, at the same time, that she had sustained a most serious injury by
her injustice and precipitation. She went to war to seek retribution,
and after fighting a while, she left off, and forgot to ask the
retribution for which she went to war! And this is the example held up
for our imitation; because Great Britain violated the law of nations, we
are called upon to do so too! We are told also that Great Britain
commenced war during our Revolution, against the Dutch, without any
previous notification; that she did the same in the late war with
France, and in both cases seized on the ships in her harbors; that is,
like a professional bully, she struck first, and then told them she
would fight them--and this is the gracious example held up to us.

The merits of the different propositions consisted in this, that by the
amendments we propose to seek the recourse of pacific nations--to follow
up our own uniform practice; we pursue, in fact, the ordinary and
rational course. The first resolutions go at once to the point of war.
This was openly and fairly acknowledged by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. G. MORRIS.) The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. ROSS,) indeed,
told us that it is not war--it was only going and taking peaceable
possession of New Orleans! He did not before think the gentleman felt so
little respect for the Senate, or estimated their understandings so much
inferior to his own, as to call such a measure an act of peace! How did
the gentleman mean to go, and how take peaceable possession? Would he
march at the head of the _posse comitatus_? No! he would march at the
head of fifty thousand militia, and he would send forth the whole naval
and regular force, armed and provided with military stores. He would
enter their island, set fire to their warehouses, and bombard their
city, desolate their farms and plantations, and having swept all their
habitations away, after wading through streams of blood, he would tell
those who had escaped destruction, we do not come here to make war on
you--we are a very moderate, tender-hearted kind of neighbors, and are
come here barely to take peaceable possession of your territory! Why,
sir, this is too naked not to be an insult to the understanding of a
child!

But the gentleman from New York (Mr. MORRIS) did not trifle with the
Senate in such a style; he threw off the mask at once, and in a
downright manly way, fairly told us that he liked war--that it was his
favorite mode of negotiating between nations; that war gave dignity to
the species--that it drew forth the most noble energies of humanity!
That gentleman scorned to tell us that he wished to take peaceable
possession. No! He could not snivel; his vast genius spurned
huckstering; his mighty soul would not bear to be locked up in a petty
warehouse at New Orleans; he was for war, terrible, glorious havoc! He
tells you plainly, that you are not only to recover your rights, but,
you must remove your neighbors from their possessions, and repel those
to whom they may transfer the soil; that Buonaparte's ambition is
insatiable; that he will throw in colonies of Frenchmen, who will settle
on your frontier for thousands of miles round about, (when he comes
there;) and he does not forget to tell you of the imminent dangers which
threaten our good old friends the English. He tells you that New Orleans
is the lock and you must seize upon the key, and shut the door against
this terrible Buonaparte, or he will come with his legions, and, as
Gulliver served the Lilliputians, wash you off the map. Not content, in
his great care for your honor and glory, as a statesman and a warrior,
he turns prophet to oblige you--your safety in the present year or the
next, does not satisfy him--his vast mind, untrammelled by the ordinary
progressions of chronology, looks over ages to come with a faculty
bordering on omniscience, and conjures us to come forward and regulate
the decrees of Providence at ten thousand years distance.

We have been told that Spain had no right to cede Louisiana to France;
that she had ceded to us the privilege of deposit, and had therefore no
right to cede her territory without our consent! Are gentlemen disposed
to wage war in support of this principle? Because she has given us a
little privilege--a mere indulgence on her territory--is she thereby
constrained from doing any thing for ever with her immense possessions?
No doubt, if the gentleman (Mr. MORRIS) were to be the negotiator on
this occasion, he would say: "You mean to cede New Orleans; no,
gentlemen, I beg your pardon, you cannot cede that, for we want it
ourselves; and as to the Floridas, it would be very indiscreet to cede
that, as, in all human probability, we shall want that also in less than
five hundred years from this day; and then, as to Louisiana, you surely
could not think of that, for in something less than a thousand years, in
the natural order of things, our population will progress towards that
place also."

If Spain has ceded those countries to France, the cession has been made
with all the encumbrances and obligations to which it is subject by
previous compact with us. Whether Buonaparte will execute these
obligations with good faith, he could not say; but to say that Spain has
no right to cede, is a bold assertion indeed. The people of America will
not go along with such doctrines, for they lead to ruin alone. We are
also told, that the power of the Chief Consul is so great, that he puts
up and pulls down all the nations of the Old World at discretion, and
that he can do so with us. Yet we are told by the wonderful statesman,
who gives us this awful information, that we must go to war with this
maker and destroyer of Governments. If, after the unceasing pursuit of
empire and conquest, which is thus presented to us, we take possession
of his territory, from the gentleman's own declarations, what are we to
expect, only that this wonderful man, who never abandons an object--who
thinks his own and the nation's honor pledged to go through whatever he
undertakes--will next attack us? Does the gentleman think that this
terrible picture, which his warm imagination has drawn, is a conclusive
argument for proceeding to that war which he recommends?

The Senate, Mr. PRESIDENT, at this moment, presents a very extraordinary
aspect; and by those not acquainted with our political affairs, it would
appear a political phenomenon. Here we see a number of people from the
Eastern States and the seaboard, filled with the most extreme solicitude
for the interest and rights of the Western and inland States; while the
representatives of the Western people themselves appear to know nothing
of this great danger, and to feel a full confidence in their Government.
The former declaring that the Western people are all ready for revolt
and open to seduction; the latter ignorant of any such disposition, and
indignant at the disgrace which is thrown on their character. In their
great loving-kindness for the Western people, those new friends of
theirs tell them that they are a simple people, who do not know what is
good for them, and that they will kindly undertake to do this for them.
From the contiguous States of South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and
Kentucky, (those States from which the gentleman from Pennsylvania, by
his resolutions, proposes to draw the militia,) every member of this
House is opposed to war; but from the East, (and one can scarcely
refrain from laughing, to hear of the all-important representatives of
the State of Delaware in particular,) such is the passion for the
wonderful, or the absurd, there prevails the liveliest sensibility for
the Western country!

Mr. NICHOLAS said,--When the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. ROSS)
opened his war project, his resentment appeared to be confined wholly to
Spain; his sole object the securing the navigation of the Mississippi,
and our right to a convenient place of deposit on that river. We were
told by that gentleman, that we are bound to go to war for this right,
which God and nature had given the Western people. What are we to
understand by this right, given by God and nature? Surely not the right
of deposit, for that was given by treaty; and as to the right of
navigation, that has been neither suspended nor brought into question.
But we are told by the same gentleman, that the possession of New
Orleans is necessary to our complete security. Leaving to the
gentleman's own conscience to settle the question as to the morality of
taking that place, because it would be convenient, he would inform him
that the possession of it will not give us complete security. The island
of Cuba, from its position, and the excellence of its harbors, commands
the Gulf of Mexico as completely as New Orleans does the river
Mississippi, and to give that complete security that he requires of the
President, the island of Cuba must likewise be taken possession of. It
has been shown that the measures proposed by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, and he would again demonstrate it, if it was necessary,
are calculated to bring upon the Western country all the mischiefs that
gentleman has depicted as resulting to them from a loss of the
navigation of the river Mississippi. If we are driven to war to assert
our rights, the Western people must make up their minds to bear that
loss during the war; for without a naval superiority, which we have not
and cannot obtain, or the possession of Cuba, we shall not be able to
avail ourselves of the navigation to any useful purpose. Although we may
take possession of the Floridas and New Orleans, it is from a conviction
of its pernicious effects upon the Western country, as well as other
reasons, that he was averse to appealing to arms as long as there is a
prospect of attaining our object in another way.

The gentleman from New York, finding the weight of argument against him,
and that a resort to arms would not be justifiable upon the ground taken
by his friends, with a boldness and promptitude that characterizes
veteran politicians, has not only assigned new and different causes for
war, but new objects, and a new and more powerful enemy to cope with. He
no doubt felt the force of the arguments that have been used to show the
improbability that Spain would authorize an act that would produce a
rupture with this country, at the moment that she was parting with
Louisiana, and when she could not possibly derive any advantage from the
wrong that she could do us by that act; and at a time when we knew from
unquestionable evidence that it is the desire of Spain to cultivate a
good understanding with this country. He could give no credit to the
suggestion, that the First Consul had required Spain to take that step.
He knew that character too well to believe that he would attempt to
throw a responsibility upon others, for his measures, nor indeed could
it be shown that the First Consul would be in any way benefited by it;
he knows the American character too well to believe that any of the
reasons that have been assigned by his friends who have preceded him in
this argument, would form a justification for a declaration of war,
without a previous demand for a redress of the wrongs that we have
sustained. He knows that our countrymen, with a courage and perseverance
that does promise success in any war, are at all times ready when it is
necessary to assert their rights with arms, but that they will not be
employed in wars of ambition or conquest; and above all, he sees the
folly of going to war with Spain, and taking from her a country that we
should be obliged in honor and justice to give up to the French, perhaps
the instant after we had taken possession of it; for if France would
reinstate us in the rights and privileges that we hold under our new
treaty with Spain, I demand of the gentleman from New York, if he would
wish this country to hold possession against France; and if he would,
upon what ground he would justify it?

The cession was made to France before the injury done us by the Spanish
officer; knowing this, we take the country; upon France demanding it of
us, we should be bound by every principle of honor and justice to give
her possession, upon her engaging to respect properly our rights. Spain
having injured us surely will not justify our committing an outrage of
the most injurious and insulting nature upon France. Would conduct like
this comport with the gentleman's ideas of national honor, about which
we have heard so much in the course of this debate? Can it be, that an
act, which, if perpetrated by an individual, would be robbery, can be
justifiable in a nation? And can it be justifiable in the eyes of men,
who believe there is nothing so precious or important as national honor?
Can the usefulness or convenience of any acquisition justify us in
taking from another by force what we have no sort of right to?

There were not in America men more attached or more faithful to the
Government of the United States than they were; and I will venture to
predict, from my knowledge of them, that they will be the last to submit
to the yoke of despotism, let it be attempted to be imposed upon them by
whom it may. If there is one part of America more interested than any
other in preserving the union of these States, and the present
Government, it is the Western. Important as the Mississippi is to them,
their free intercourse with the Atlantic States is more important--all
their imports are received through that channel, and their most
valuable exports are sold, and will continue to be so, in the Atlantic
States. The same gentleman (Mr. MORRIS) says, we must line our frontier
with custom-house officers, to prevent smuggling. If there is any force
in what he says upon this subject, we ought not only to take New Orleans
and the Floridas, but Louisiana, and all the British possessions on the
continent. Another reason urged with great earnestness by the gentleman
from New York, (Mr. MORRIS,) is, that France, without this acquisition,
is too powerful for the peace and security of the rest of the
world--that half the nations that lately existed are gone--that those
that are left are afraid to act, and nation after nation falling at her
nod--that, if France acquires the Floridas and New Orleans, it will put
England and Spain completely in her power, giving to those places an
importance that they do not merit; and yet that gentleman and his
friends have repeatedly asserted that war would not result from our
taking immediate possession of those places; indeed, they say, it is the
only way to avoid war. At one moment the country is represented as so
important as to make the First Consul the sovereign of the world; at the
next, we are told that we may take it without any sort of risk, and
without a probability that either France or Spain will go to war with us
for the recovery of a country so all-important to them. In the language
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I say, this idle tale may amuse
children, but will not satisfy men.

Mr. PRESIDENT, we have nothing to fear from the colony of any European
nation on this continent; they ought rather to be considered as a pledge
of the good conduct of the mother country towards us; for such
possessions must be held only during our pleasure.

Can France, in fifty years, or in a century, establish a colony in any
part of the territories now possessed by Spain, that could resist the
power of the United States, even at this day, for a single campaign?
What has been our progress since the year 1763, in settling our Western
country? In forty years, under the most favorable circumstances that a
new country could be settled, we have only a population of between five
and six hundred thousand souls, and this country is settled by men who
knew it perfectly--by men who either carried all their friends with
them, or who knew that change of residence would not prevent their
frequently seeing and hearing from their nearest relatives. Can it be
expected that any country will be peopled as fast, from a nation at the
distance of three thousand miles, as our Western country has been? And
yet we are taught to be apprehensive of a colony to be landed to-morrow
or next day from Europe. Sir, if we are wise and true to ourselves, we
have nothing to fear from any nation, or combination of nations, against
us. We are too far removed from the theatre of European politics, to be
embroiled in them, if we act with common discretion. Friendship with us,
is the interest of every commercial and manufacturing nation. Our
interest is not to encourage partialities or prejudices towards any, but
to treat them all with justice and liberality. He should be sorry to
reproach any nation--he would rather suffer former causes of reproach to
be buried in oblivion; and he was happy to perceive that prejudices
which were incidental to the war that we had been forced into in defence
of our liberties, with a nation from which we are principally sprung,
were fast wearing off. Those prejudices had been very powerfully
revived, soon after our Revolution had established our independence, by
the aggressions of that nation, in various ways, more flagrant and
atrocious than any thing we have to complain of at this day.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania said that this is not an apposite case;
that at that time there was no blockade. It is true there was not a
blockade of one of our ports, nor is there now, (the river Mississippi
is open for the passage of our boats and vessels,) but we were injured,
in a commercial point of view, in a more material manner than we should
have been by the blockade of the Delaware or the Chesapeake; for all the
countries (except Great Britain) to which it was desirable for us to
trade were declared to be in a state of blockade, and all our vessels
going to those countries were subject to seizure. Let gentlemen call to
mind what was the conduct of our Government at that time. The House of
Representatives had the subject under consideration, when the then
President appointed an Envoy Extraordinary to demand satisfaction of
Great Britain. What was the conduct of the members of the House of
Representatives, who were acting upon the subject, before it was known
to them that the Executive had taken any measures to obtain satisfaction
for the injury sustained? Did they attempt to counteract the Executive?
No; they suspended all Legislative discussions and Legislative measures.
And even the injuries done us by the actual invasion of our territory,
the erection of fortifications within our limits, the withholding the
posts that belonged to us by treaty, and the robbery and abuse of our
citizens on the high seas, did not provoke us to declare war, nor even
to dispossess the invaders of our territory of what actually belonged to
us. The Executive proposed to negotiate, and it was thought improper to
obstruct it. How gentlemen who approved of the interference of the
Executive upon that occasion, can justify their attempt to defeat the
efforts of the present Administration to obtain redress for the injury
that we now complain of, they must answer to their consciences and their
country. Fortunately for the United States, not only the President, but
a majority of both Houses of Congress, upon the present occasion, have
put themselves in the gap between the pestilence and the people.

If the gentleman from New York had exerted his ingenuity as much to
state the grounds upon which an expectation of the complete success of
our Envoy might be founded, he would have been at least as usefully
employed for his country as he has been in his attempt to show that it
will not succeed, and he would have avoided the palpable contradictions
of his own arguments that he has run into. The gentleman himself,
without intending it, has assigned sufficient reasons why we might
expect entire satisfaction. He has said, truly, that America, united,
holds the command of the West Indies in her hands. This must be known to
all the nations that have colonies there; it must likewise be known to
the proprietors of Louisiana and the Floridas, that, circumstanced as we
at present are, there will be perpetual sources of contention between
them and us. Every thing that has happened as to the Mississippi will be
reacted as to the great rivers that head in what is now the Mississippi
Territory, and empty themselves into the Gulf of Mexico, after passing
through West Florida. In the infancy of the colonies that may be settled
in Florida or Louisiana, the mother country can count upon nothing but
expense, particularly if they are to be the causes of perpetual quarrels
with this country. In twenty years, the population of the United States
will be nine or ten millions of people; one-third of that population
will probably be on the Western waters. This will give a force in that
quarter of the Union equal to that with which we contended with Great
Britain; and our united force will be such that no nation at the
distance of three thousand miles will be able to contend with us for any
object in our neighborhood. These considerations, with a belief that, if
we are treated with justice and liberality, we shall never violate the
rights of other nations, or suffer ourselves to be involved in the wars
that may take place among the great European nations, are arguments that
cannot be withstood, if the Governments of France and Spain are in the
hands of wise men; for they must see that they have nothing to hope from
a contest with us, and that a union of our force with a rival nation
would be productive of very serious danger and inconvenience to them.

Mr. DAYTON said, he lamented exceedingly the indisposition of the
honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. NICHOLAS,) not only because it had
compelled him to abridge his arguments, which always entertained, even
when they failed to convince, but because to that distraction of mind
which sickness often produces, could alone be ascribed the doubts
expressed by that member, respecting the views of the advocates of the
original resolutions. The difficulty of the opposers of the resolutions,
would, he said, have been less, if the gentlemen who supported them had
settled among themselves what was their object, and had ascertained with
whom we were to make war. To both these points, Mr. D. said, the fullest
and clearest answers had been given. Our object, says he, is to obtain a
prompt redress of injuries immediately affecting our Western brethren,
who look to us for decisive and effectual measures, and have told us
that a delay of remedy will be ruinous to them; and our views and
wishes are to take possession of the place of deposit guaranteed by
treaty, whether it be in the hands of the one nation or the other, and
to hold it as a security that the trade of so important a river should
not be liable to similar interruptions in future. We are not, as the
gentleman from Virginia would insinuate, for rushing into a war, but we
are for repelling insults, and insisting upon our rights, even at the
risk of one. It was easy to foresee that the opposers of the resolutions
offered by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, must resort to
other means than fair argument, to justify them in the course which they
were about to pursue. Our most precious rights flagrantly violated,
treaties perfidiously broken, the outlet or road to market of half a
million of our fellow-citizens obstructed, our trade shackled, our
country grossly insulted, were facts too notorious, and too outrageous
to allow them the least plausible ground of reasoning. Deprived of every
other means of attack, they have resorted to that of alarm. They charge
us with a thirst for war, and enter into a description of its horrors,
as if they supposed that it was in our power to produce, or in theirs to
prevent it. That which requires the concurrence of two parties, viz:
contract or negotiation, they consider most easy; and war, which may
always be produced by one party only, they consider as most difficult.
Nay, sir, they do what is more extraordinary and unpardonable, they shut
their eyes to the fact that hostility has already been commenced against
us. Attacked and insulted as we had been, do we now, asked Mr. D., call
for war? Let the resolutions give the answer. They begin with a
declaration of certain rights, indisputable in their nature,
indispensable in their possession, to the safety, peace, and union of
this country. Not a member opposed to us has controverted them, except
the honorable gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. WRIGHT.) He denied the truth
of all except one of them, and even of a part of that one. His honorable
friends from the Western country, who are in the habit of acting with
him, cannot thank him for such defence. The formerly well applied words,
"_Non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis egent_," must be applicable on
this occasion, and it may be as well to leave them with each other to
settle the question of their rights. But there is one article of the
Maryland member's creed which ought not to escape comment, because, if
adopted, it would be fatal to the Union. I understood him, said Mr. D.,
as stating, that inasmuch as the produce which descends the Mississippi
bears a proportion of about a twentieth only to the exports of the whole
Union, it was not reasonable to expect that the other portion should be
endangered to protect that minor part. If maxims like this were to
actuate our councils, short indeed would be the duration of our
independence. Our enemies would have only to attack us by piecemeal,
State by State, to make us an easy prey. The honorable member from
Maryland could not hope for even that gloomy consolation which we heard
of on a former melancholy occasion. He could not flatter himself that he
and his State would be left to be the _last victim_.

But, Mr. PRESIDENT, every other gentleman appears to admit the truth of
the prefatory declaration of rights; they admit, too, that if we cannot
be possessed of them otherwise, we must seize on them by force; but they
refuse to give the means and the power to the President, in whom they
have told us, over and over again, they repose implicit confidence. Is
any one of the resolutions too imperative on the President, we will
agree so to alter as to make it discretionary, if desired by any
gentleman on the other side; for without their leave, we cannot now
amend our own resolutions.

It is my consolation, Mr. PRESIDENT, said Mr. D., and it ought to be
matter of triumph to my honorable friend, the mover of these
resolutions, that, whatever may be their fate, the introduction and
discussion of them will have produced no little benefit. They have
brought forward gentlemen to pledge themselves, in their speeches, to
employ force on failure of negotiation; which, though late, is better
than never. They must be allowed the merit, too, of producing the
resolutions which they offer as a substitute. These milk-and-water
propositions of Mr. BRECKENRIDGE will at least serve to show that
something should be done, some preparations made; and therefore even to
these, feeble as they are, I will agree, if more cannot be carried. But
let the relative merits of the two be compared. _Ours_ authorize to call
out of those militia nearest to the scene, and most interested in the
event, a number not exceeding fifty thousand, and to give them orders to
act, when the occasion requires it, in conjunction with the army and
navy; _theirs_ authorize an enrolment of eighty thousand, dispersed over
the whole Continent, without any authority to act with them, however
pressing the danger, nor even to march them out of their own State.
_Ours_ authorize the President to take immediate possession of some
convenient place of deposit, as guaranteed by treaty, in order to afford
immediate vent for the Western produce, and relief to our suffering
fellow-citizens, and thereby put it out of the power of a Spanish
Intendant, whether acting from caprice, or orders from his Court, to
obstruct so important an outlet; _theirs_ give no such authority, but
leave to the slow progress and uncertainty of negotiation that remedy,
which, to delay, is almost as fatal as to refuse.

The question being at length called for, on the motion of Mr.
BRECKENRIDGE, for striking out the first section of the resolutions
proposed by Mr. ROSS, the yeas and nays were required, and stood, 15 to
11, as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge,
      Clinton, Cocke, Ellery, T. Foster, Jackson, Logan, S. T.
      Mason, Nicholas, Stone, Sumter, and Wright.

      NAYS.--Messrs. Dayton, Hillhouse, Howard, J. Mason, Morris,
      Olcott, Plumer, Ross, Tracy, Wells, and White.

On the question for striking out the remaining parts of the resolutions,
the question was also taken, and carried by the same votes on each side.

The question being then called for on the adoption of the amendments
proposed by Mr. BRECKENRIDGE, the yeas and nays were called for, and the
votes were as follows:

      YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge,
      Clinton, Cocke, Dayton, Ellery, T. Foster, Hillhouse,
      Howard, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason, J. Mason, Morris,
      Nicholas, Olcott, Plumer, Ross, Stone, Sumter, Tracy,
      Wells, and Wright.

      NAYS.--None.

So it was unanimously

      _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be, and
      he is hereby authorized, whenever he shall judge it
      expedient, to require of the Executives of the several
      States to take effectual measures to arm, and equip,
      according to law, and hold in readiness to march, at a
      moment's warning, eighty thousand effective militia,
      officers included.

      _Resolved_, That the President may, if he judges it
      expedient, authorize the Executives of the several States
      to accept, as part of the detachment aforesaid, any corps
      of volunteers who shall continue in service for such time
      not exceeding ---- months, and perform such services as
      shall be prescribed by law.

      _Resolved_, That ---- dollars be appropriated for paying
      and subsisting such part of the troops aforesaid, whose
      actual service may be wanted, and for defraying such other
      expenses as during the recess of Congress the President may
      deem necessary for the security of the territory of the
      United States.

      _Resolved_, That ---- dollars be appropriated for erecting,
      at such place or places on the Western waters as the
      President may judge most proper, one or more arsenals.

After the question was taken,

The resolutions were referred to Messrs. BRECKENRIDGE, JACKSON, and
SUMTER, to bring in a bill or bills accordingly.


WEDNESDAY, March 2.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of
a President, _pro tempore_, as the constitution provides, and the
ballots being collected and counted, the whole number was found to be
18, of which 10 make a majority.

Mr. Bradley had 13, Mr. Morris 3, Mr. Hillhouse 1, and Mr. Logan 1.

Consequently, the Hon. STEPHEN R. BRADLEY was elected President of the
Senate, _pro tempore_.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, and acquaint him that, in the absence of the Vice President,
they have elected the Hon. STEPHEN R. BRADLEY President of the Senate,
_pro tempore_.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary make a like communication to the House of
Representatives.

The PRESIDENT communicated the credentials of JAMES HILLHOUSE, elected
by the State of Connecticut a Senator of the United States for six
years, commencing with the fourth day of March current; and they were
read and ordered to lie on file.


THURSDAY, March 3.

A message was received from the House of Representatives by Mr.
NICHOLSON and Mr. RANDOLPH, two of the members of said House, in the
words following:

"Mr. PRESIDENT: We are commanded, in the name of the House of
Representatives and of all the people of the United States, to impeach
John Pickering, judge of the district court for the district of New
Hampshire, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and to acquaint the Senate
that the House of Representatives will, in due time, exhibit particular
articles of impeachment against him, and make good the same. We are
further commanded to demand that the Senate take order for the
appearance of the said John Pickering, to answer to the said
impeachment."


THURSDAY EVENING, 6 o'clock.

Mr. TRACY, from the committee appointed on the subject, made the
following report, which was adopted, and the House of Representatives
notified accordingly:

      Whereas the House of Representatives have this day, by two
      of their members, Messrs. Nicholson and Randolph, at the
      bar of the Senate, impeached John Pickering, judge of the
      district court for the district of New Hampshire, of high
      crimes and misdemeanors, and have acquainted the Senate
      that the House of Representatives will, in due time,
      exhibit particular articles of impeachment against him, and
      make good the same: and have likewise demanded that the
      Senate take order for the appearance of the said John
      Pickering to answer to the said impeachment: Therefore,

      "_Resolved_, That the Senate will take proper order
      thereon, of which due notice shall be given to the House of
      Representatives."

_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Senate notify the House of
Representatives of this resolution.

_Adjournment._

_Ordered_, That Messrs. WRIGHT and COCKE be a committee on the part of
the Senate, with such as the House of Representatives may join, to wait
on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and notify him that, unless he may
have any further communications to make to the two Houses of Congress,
they are ready to adjourn.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the
House of Representatives concur in the resolution of the Senate for the
appointment of a joint committee to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, and notify him of the proposed adjournment of the two Houses of
Congress, and have appointed a committee on their part.

Mr. WRIGHT reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he informed the committee
that he had no further communications to make to the two Houses of
Congress.

On motion, the Senate adjourned to the first Monday in November next.




SEVENTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, December 6, 1802.

This being the day appointed by the constitution for the annual meeting
of Congress, the following members of the House of Representatives
appeared and took their seats, to wit:

_From New Hampshire._--Abiel Foster and Samuel Tenney.

_From Massachusetts._--John Bacon, Seth Hastings, Nathan Read, Josiah
Smith, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, and Lemuel Williams.

_From Rhode Island._--Joseph Stanton, jr., and Thomas Tillinghast.

_From Connecticut._--John Davenport, Calvin Goddard, Elias Perkins, John
Cotton Smith, and Benjamin Tallmadge.

_From New York._--Samuel L. Mitchill, John Smith, David Thomas, John P.
Van Ness, and Killian K. Van Rensselaer.

_From New Jersey._--John Condit, Ebenezer Elmer, James Mott, and Henry
Southard.

_From Pennsylvania._--Robert Brown, Andrew Gregg, Joseph Heister, Joseph
Hemphill, William Hoge, Michael Leib, John Smilie, John Stewart, Isaac
Van Horn, and Henry Woods.

_From Maryland._--John Dennis, Joseph H. Nicholson, Thomas Plater, and
Samuel Smith.

_From Virginia._--Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, John Dawson, David
Holmes, George Jackson, Anthony New, John Smith, and Philip R. Thompson.

_From North Carolina._--Nathaniel Macon, Speaker, Richard Stanford, and
John Stanley.

_From Tennessee._--William Dickson.

_From the North-western Territory._--Paul Fearing.

Several new members, to wit: SAMUEL HUNT, from New Hampshire, returned
to serve as a member of this House, in the room of Joseph Peirce, who
has resigned his seat; SAMUEL THATCHER, from Massachusetts, returned to
serve as a member of this House, in the room of Silas Lee, who has
resigned; and DAVID MERIWETHER, from Georgia, returned to serve as a
member of this House, in the room of Benjamin Taliaferro, who has also
resigned; appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in
the House.

A new delegate, from the Mississippi Territory, to wit, THOMAS M. GREEN,
returned to serve in this House, in the room of Narsworthy Hunter,
deceased, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat in the
House.

But a quorum of the whole number of qualified members not being present,
the House adjourned until to-morrow morning, eleven o'clock.


TUESDAY, December 7.

Another new member, to wit, THOMAS WYNN, from North Carolina, returned
to serve as a member of this House, for the said State, in the room of
Charles Johnson, deceased, appeared, produced his credentials, and took
his seat in the House.

Several other members, viz: from New Hampshire, GEORGE B. UPHAM; from
Massachusetts, PHANUEL BISHOP, MANASSEH CUTLER, and WILLIAM SHEPARD;
from Connecticut, SAMUEL W. DANA and ROGER GRISWOLD; from Pennsylvania,
THOMAS BOUDE; from Virginia, THOMAS NEWTON, jr., and JOHN TRIGG; from
North Carolina, JAMES HOLLAND; and from South Carolina, THOMAS MOORE;
appeared, and took their seats in the House.

And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number of qualified
members, being present, 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 administered by
Mr. SPEAKER to the new members.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate, to inform them that a
quorum of this House is assembled, and are ready to proceed to business,
and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message.


WEDNESDAY, December 8.

Two other members, to wit: from New Jersey, WILLIAM HELMS, and from
North Carolina, WILLIS ALSTON, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.


THURSDAY, December 9.

Two other members, to wit: WALTER BOWIE, from Maryland, and THOMAS T.
DAVIS, from Kentucky, appeared, and took their seats in the House.


FRIDAY, December 10.

Two other members, to wit: WILLIAM EUSTIS, from Massachusetts, and JOHN
A. HANNA, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.


SATURDAY, December 11.

Another member, to wit, ARCHIBALD HENDERSON, from North Carolina,
appeared, and took his seat in the House.


MONDAY, December 13.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, RICHARD CUTTS; from
New York, THOMAS MORRIS; from Virginia, ABRAM TRIGG; and from South
Carolina, THOMAS LOWNDES; appeared, and took their seats in the House.


TUESDAY, December 14.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, EBENEZER MATTOON;
from New York, THEODORUS BAILEY; from Virginia, JOHN RANDOLPH, jr., and
JOHN TALIAFERRO, jr.; and from South Carolina, WILLIAM BUTLER; appeared,
and took their seats in the House.


WEDNESDAY, December 15.

Another member, to wit, EDWIN GRAY, from Virginia, appeared, and took
his seat in the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have agreed
to the resolution of this House for the appointment of Chaplains to
Congress for the present session; and have appointed the Rev. Dr. GANTT,
on their part.

The House proceeded, by ballot, to the appointment of a Chaplain to
Congress, on the part of this House; and, upon examining the ballots, a
majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of the
Reverend WILLIAM PARKINSON.

A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, by Mr.
LEWIS, his Secretary, as follows:

      Mr. SPEAKER: I am directed by the President of the United
      States to hand you a communication, in writing, from the
      President to the two Houses of Congress.

And he delivered in the same, together with the accompanying documents.
The said communication was read. [For which, see proceedings in the
Senate of this date.]

_Ordered_, That the said communication, with the accompanying documents,
be referred to the Committee of the whole House on the state of the
Union.


THURSDAY, December 16.

Two other members, to wit: LUCAS ELMENDORPH, from New York, and DANIEL
HEISTER, from Maryland, appeared, and took their seats in the House.


FRIDAY, December 17.

Two other members, to wit: from South Carolina, BENJAMIN HUGER, and JOHN
RUTLEDGE, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

_Violation of the Right of Deposit at New Orleans._

Mr. RANDOLPH observed that there had been a recent occurrence, in which
every member of the House was interested, though every member might not,
perhaps, possess competent information respecting it. He said it would
be useless in him to impress the magnitude of a subject that related to
the free navigation of the Mississippi, which materially affected a
district of country growing every day in wealth and importance, and
which it behooved the whole United States to cherish and protect. He
moved, therefore, the following resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to cause to be laid before this House such papers
      as are in the possession of the Department of State, as
      relate to the violation on the part of Spain, of the Treaty
      of Friendship, Limits, and Navigation, between the United
      States of America and the King of Spain."


MONDAY, December 20.

Several other members, to wit: from Vermont, ISRAEL SMITH; and from
Virginia, RICHARD BRENT, and MATTHEW CLAY; appeared, and took their
seats in the House.


TUESDAY, December 21.

Another member, to wit, JOHN CAMPBELL, from Maryland, appeared, and took
his seat in the House.


WEDNESDAY, December 22.

Another member, to wit, JOHN ARCHER, from Maryland, appeared, and took
his seat.

_Violation of the Right of Deposit at New Orleans._

A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, as
follows:

      _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

      I now transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with
      the information requested in your resolutions of the
      seventeenth instant.

      In making this communication, I deem it proper to observe,
      that I was led by the regard due to the rights and
      interests of the United States, and to the just sensibility
      of the portion of our fellow-citizens more immediately
      affected by the irregular proceeding at New Orleans, to
      lose not a moment in causing every step to be taken which
      the occasion claimed from me; being equally aware of the
      obligation to maintain, in all cases, the rights of the
      nation, and to employ, for that purpose, those just and
      honorable means which belong to the character of the United
      States.

                          TH. JEFFERSON.

      _Dec. 22, 1802._

The Message, and the papers referred to therein, were read, and ordered
to lie on the table.

_The Mint._

Mr. RANDOLPH rose, in order to renew a motion which he had made
yesterday, and on which--being called to the door when some objections
were urged against it--he was surprised to find himself in a small
minority. Understanding that the refusal to resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole on his motion for abolishing the Mint, was the
effect of a desire on the part of the House to receive the report of the
Director of that institution, for the past year, he would endeavor to
show that the House were already in possession of competent information,
and that it could not be affected by any communication which the head of
that department might make. If this were a subject novel to the House,
and of an undigested nature, he should readily acknowledge his motion to
have been premature; nor would it, under those circumstances, have been
submitted to the House. But, on examination, it would appear that the
subject had been matured during the last session; that information of
the most satisfactory nature had been received from the Director; and a
bill actually passed the House. That information, if it were not in the
recollection of every member of the House, was accessible to all of
them. It stated explicitly that the machinery would not last, without
repair, longer than another year--this, he presumed, had not renewed
itself; that the horses were so old that it would be necessary, at the
end of the year, to replace them by others--these had not, he supposed,
grown younger; that the lot was too circumscribed, and this, he
imagined, had not enlarged its limits; that the expense of the
institution could not, by any new arrangements, be reduced below twenty
thousand dollars. The Director had not only recommended a change of the
site, but of the _modus operandi_ of the machinery of the Mint, by
supplying the labor of horses by steam. Upon this information the House
had acted last session. No general election having intervened, he must
presume that no change of sentiment had taken place. He, therefore,
thought he had a right to consider this subject as perfectly matured,
and there being no other business before the House, hoped it would be
taken up; although he was not surprised at the reluctance of those
gentlemen who cherished the institution as one of the insignia of
sovereignty, to act upon it. This aspect of the subject could not,
however, be changed by any report of the detailed operations of the
Mint. He, therefore, moved that the House, agreeably to the order of the
day, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the resolution to
repeal so much of the laws on the subject of the Mint as relate to the
establishing of a Mint.

Mr. SOUTHARD was in favor of the postponement. There were now present a
number of gentlemen not members at the period of discussion during the
last session. They have no documents, and cannot be correctly informed.
He saw no advantage in entering upon the discussion at this time, as
new and additional information may be received from the report of the
Director. It had been said there was no business before the House; but
there was business; there was a bill upon their table, why not take that
up and act upon it?

Mr. RANDOLPH called for the reading of a document that would throw clear
and full light upon the subject; not light of that fleeting kind that
may be derived from an annual report. From this document sufficient
information could be had to convince any member that we might act as
well now as at any other time.

[The Clerk read a report from the Director of the Mint, received during
the last session, stating the real and personal property attached to the
Mint; that the machinery might last for one year; that the horses may
last a year; that to conduct the operations of the Mint to advantage,
steam should be used instead of horses; that the lot on which the Mint
is erected was too small; and that a less annual sum than seventeen or
eighteen thousand dollars would not provide for the establishment.]

Mr. RANDOLPH said he would state a fact, which was, that notwithstanding
all the issues from the Mint, no member sees a coin. For himself he had
not seen a piece of gold coined in the Mint for two years.

Mr. LOWNDES said the remark of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH) was not correct, as he had seen many pieces of American coin.
But he could assign a satisfactory reason for the appearance of so
little gold in ordinary circulation. It was the practice of the banks to
count over once a month the specie in their vaults. This trouble was
considerably lessened by depositing gold instead of silver. He had been
credibly assured that there was now in the vaults of the banks of the
United States gold, in eagles and half eagles, to the amount of two
millions of dollars.[72]

Mr. DENNIS said that, if, on full inquiry, the establishment appeared to
be a drain on the Treasury, he should be for abolishing it; but he
should not, on immature information, be for abolishing an institution,
coeval with the Government, and founded on good reasons. The reasons
adduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) were insufficient.
So far as related to the horses, he believed there were only four
employed, and the purchase of four fresh ones would be a very
unimportant consideration. Another argument was drawn from the smallness
of the lot on which the Mint stands. Though it might be better conducted
on a more extensive lot, yet he was not satisfied, notwithstanding
present disadvantages, that it might not be profitably conducted, at
least so far as regarded a copper coinage. For these reasons he thought
it proper to wait a few days, in order to receive information that would
enable them to understand the points on which their decision may
ultimately turn.

The question was then taken on Mr. GREGG'S motion to postpone the
subject till the second Monday in January, and carried--ayes 47, noes
28.


THURSDAY, December 23.

Another member, to wit, LEWIS R. MORRIS, from Vermont, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.


FRIDAY, December 24.

Another member, to wit, WILLIAM H. HILL, from North Carolina, appeared,
and took his seat in the House.


MONDAY, December 27.

_Case of J. P. Van Ness._

Mr. DAVIS observed that he was of opinion that a member of the House
retained his seat contrary to the spirit and sense of the constitution.
It therefore became his duty to offer a resolution for instituting an
inquiry into the subject, in doing which he disclaimed all personal
view. He then made the following motion:

      _Resolved_, That the Committee of Elections be, and they
      are hereby, instructed to inquire whether John P. Van Ness,
      one of the members of this House from the State of New
      York, returned by said State to serve as one of its members
      in the seventh Congress of the United States, has not,
      since his election as a member of this House, and since he
      occupied a seat as a member, accepted of, and exercised the
      office of a major of militia, under the authority of the
      United States, within the Territory of Columbia, and
      thereby forfeited his right to a seat as a member of this
      House.

Mr. MITCHILL considered the point as interesting in two relations; that
which involved the decision of a principle, and that which went to
deprive the State, (New York,) one of whose representatives he was, of a
member. For these reasons he hoped the business would not be immediately
pressed. He acknowledged this was not the first intimation he had
received of the contemplation of such a motion; but he had entertained a
hope that the gentleman with whom it originated, had, on reflection,
considered it not inconsistent with his duty to abandon it.

Mr. DAVIS replied, that he felt no disposition to press a decision. He
had communicated, the first day he took his seat, his ideas on the
subject to certain members, the friends of the gentleman implicated by
the resolution, in hopes that he would resign. He now entertained no
wish to push the business. He supposed, however, that the resolution
would, of course, go to the Committee of Elections. He repeated that he
was governed by no personal prejudice, but entirely by a sense of duty.
He concluded with saying he was in favor of the question of reference
being immediately taken.

But on Mr. MITCHILL repeating his desire for some delay, Mr. DAVIS
agreed to let the resolution lie till to-morrow.


TUESDAY, December 28.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, JOHN STRATTON; and from North
Carolina, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.

_Letter of James McHenry._

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter addressed to him from James
McHenry, late Secretary for the War Department, containing a variety of
observations on the subject-matter of a report presented to the House,
on the twenty-ninth day of April last, from the committee appointed to
inquire and report, whether moneys drawn from the Treasury have been
faithfully applied to the objects for which they were appropriated, and
whether the same have been regularly accounted for; and to report,
likewise, whether any further arrangements are necessary to promote
economy, enforce adherence to Legislative restrictions, and secure the
accountability of persons intrusted with the public money, together with
an appendix, comprising sundry explanatory statements in defence of the
official conduct of the said James McHenry, whilst acting in the
capacity aforesaid: the House proceeded in the reading of the said
letter, and having made some progress therein,

Mr. ALSTON said that the paper which the Clerk was reading appeared to
him to be a very voluminous one, and that he did not think the House
were bound to listen to the reading of it. He conceived them only bound
to attend to such documents as might be received from public officers,
or to petitions for a redress of grievances. He did not believe the
paper now before the House to be one of that description, or that the
House ought to take any notice of it. If the House were bound to take
notice of every letter any individual might think proper to write and
address to the Speaker, very little time might be left to do any other
business. He concluded by saying he thought they ought to take no more
notice of it than they should of any paragraph in a newspaper which
might be enclosed to the Speaker. He therefore moved that the paper
should not be read.

Mr. STANLEY observed that he did not perceive the difference stated by
his colleague; nor did he know how the gentleman could anticipate the
contents of a communication before read. We shall be enabled to judge
better of it when we hear it. By what inspiration could the gentleman
form a judgment now? The communication appeared to him of the utmost
importance. He hoped, therefore, it would be read.

Mr. MORRIS could not omit making a remark or two. From the
communication, so far as read, it appeared that it was charged that the
character of a former public officer had been aspersed. The House ought,
therefore, not only to read the communication, but also to inquire into
the complaint. There was not an indecent expression in it. The writer
complains that his character has been attacked; he thinks unjustly
attacked. It will be the height of injustice to refuse him an
opportunity of being heard.

The SPEAKER said that it was a rule of the House that when the reading
of a paper is called for, it shall be read, unless dispensed with by
general consent.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he wished only to observe, that there was but one
principle (and that had been stated by the Speaker) on which these
papers ought to be read. Any member had a right to call for the reading
of papers. To him, however, it appeared that there was no occasion for
inspiration to perceive that the papers, so far as read, were in a high
degree indecent, unworthy of any man who had held, or ought to hold, an
office under Government, and derogatory from the dignity of the House.
Members were cited by name; insults were offered to individual members;
a committee was divided into different sects; on one class illiberal
calumnies were thrown, while the other class was shielded from
reflection. Was this decent or indecent? He congratulated himself that
he differed as widely on this subject as he did on others from
gentlemen.

Mr. MORRIS said, however widely he might differ on this as well as other
subjects from the gentleman from Virginia, he believed his own ideas of
what was decent or indecent as correct as those of that gentleman. The
letter states that a report had been made during the last session
implicating the character of the writer. It further states that certain
gentlemen on the committee did not concur in the report. This the writer
knew from the debates upon the report. He therefore thought it his duty,
in vindicating himself, to exonerate those members from censure. Was
this indecent? He conceived not.

Mr. M. said that when he had observed that there was not an indecent
expression in the letter, he meant that there was no such expression
applied to the House collectively. He did not mean to say there were no
charges against individual members. But if there were charges against
individual members, that was no reason for the House refusing to hear
it. That could only be done when charges were made against the House in
its collective character.

The SPEAKER read the rules of the House that applied to the case before
them.

Mr. ALSTON said he only rose to notice the observation of his colleague,
(Mr. STANLEY,) who supposed he saw the inside of the communication
before it was presented. This he denied. He had grounded his motion
exclusively on what he had heard read.

Mr. BACON was at a loss to decide on the propriety of reading or not
reading these papers. He perceived that they contained not only a
complaint, but a high charge against a committee of the House, stating
that the major part assumed to act exclusively upon the business
assigned to the whole committee, without consulting the other members.
This was a high charge. Whether proper, or regularly made, he did not
know. It was rather his opinion that the House ought to proceed in
reading the papers, and afterwards to pass proper order on them.

The SPEAKER declared the rule for reading imperative, and Mr. ALSTON
withdrew his motion; on which the Clerk proceeded in the reading, which
was continued for more than an hour.


WEDNESDAY, December 29.

_Case of John P. Van Ness._

Mr. DAVIS called up his resolution instructing the Committee of
Elections to inquire whether Mr. VAN NESS had not forfeited his seat, by
accepting the appointment of Major in the Militia of the Territory of
Columbia.

Mr. VAN NESS said that, so far as the decision of the House might affect
him personally, he felt little concern; but, so far as it affected him
as a representative of an important State, he was not so indifferent. He
had no objection whatever to the proposed inquiry being made. As it
involved the decision of an important principle, it deserved great
attention. He had no doubt of the inquiry being made with that candor
and fairness which, in most cases, characterized the proceedings of the
House. He was far from imputing any impure motives to the mover or
seconder of the resolution. It would be as derogatory to him to impute,
as in them to entertain, any views dishonorable or base. He had risen
barely to state his wish that an inquiry might be made.

Mr. ELMENDORPH proposed a verbal amendment, which was not agreed to.

The resolution was then adopted without a division.


WEDNESDAY, January 5, 1803.

_Cession of Louisiana to France._

Mr. GRISWOLD called up his resolution respecting Louisiana, laid on the
table yesterday, as follows:

      _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this
      House copies of such official documents as have been
      received by this Government, announcing the cession of
      Louisiana to France, together with a report explaining the
      stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which
      that province is to be delivered up: unless such documents
      and report will, in the opinion of the President, divulge
      to the House particular transactions not proper at this
      time to be communicated.

The question was put on taking it into consideration, and carried--yeas
35, nays 32.

Mr. RANDOLPH observed that the discussion on this motion might embrace
points nearly connected with the subject referred to a committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union, and which had been discussed with
closed doors. He therefore thought it would be expedient to commit this
motion also to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to
whom had been committed the Message of the President respecting New
Orleans.

Mr. GRISWOLD hoped the motion would not prevail. He did not see what
argument could be urged in favor of it. The resolution related to a
public transaction stated on their journal. He did not think that any
thing which ought to be kept secret could be involved in the discussion
of it. What is its purport? It only requests the President to furnish
documents respecting "the cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana
to France, which took place in the course of the late war," and which
the President says "will, if carried into effect, make a change in the
aspect of our foreign relations, which will doubtless have just weight
in any deliberations of the Legislature connected with this subject."

Are not, said Mr. G., these papers important to the House? Does not the
President refer to them as important to enlighten us? He speaks of the
cession as a fact. He took it for granted the President would not make
the declaration unless he had official information of its truth. Ought
not the House to be possessed of all the important information in the
power of the Executive to give? It certainly ought. Every gentleman
would agree that the House ought to have all the information. If the
information is confidential, it will be received with closed doors. But
the question, whether the House shall obtain this information is a
public question; and there was not a man within those walls, or in the
United States, who would not say that the Legislature ought to possess
every information on a subject so deeply interesting. Why, then, refer
this resolution calling for information to a committee? Why postpone it?
They had but a short time to sit. More than half the session was already
elapsed. Is it not time to gain information? Mr. G. said, he would
venture to declare that no subject so important could be brought before
the Legislature this session. Ought we not, therefore, on such a
subject, to take immediate means to gain information? He hoped the House
would not agree to the reference, which could have no effect but to put
the resolution asleep, and deprive the Legislature of information they
ought to possess.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, as he had expressed his disinclination to discuss a
proposition with open doors which would trench on the decision of the
House to discuss a subject to which it intimately related with closed
doors, it could scarcely be expected that he should indulge the
gentleman in entering into arguments calculated to carry him from his
purpose. But he denied that the adoption of his motion would be a
refusal to give information. He well knew that there was nothing easier
than to declare the subject vastly important, and to make an eloquent
harangue upon it, and to infer that those who did not immediately agree
to the resolution were averse to giving information, and to going into a
discussion of the merits of the main subject. It would, however, not be
expected that he should enter upon these on a preliminary resolution.
But he would assure the gentleman who had submitted this resolution,
that, so far from indulging any disposition to be dilatory in his
attention to this important subject, he came yesterday prepared to make
a motion that the House should go into a Committee of the Whole on the
subject, which motion he should have then made but for that offered by
the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said that, did he consider that the giving publicity to any
information on this subject would in the least interfere with the
constitutional functions of the President, he would be the last man to
support the resolution of his friend from Connecticut. But he could not
conceive that this could be its effect. What were they about to ask?
They were about to ask, in respectful terms, the President for
information relative to what he states as a fact; so much information as
he may think it expedient to give. Surely there would be no impropriety
in this. The cession of Louisiana had been stated in all the public
prints of Europe and this country, and on the floor of the British
Parliament. This cession had been made a year ago, and, notwithstanding
the elapse of this time, we have received no official information on
this subject. Is it not natural for the people to ask why Congress do
not call for this information? Will they not say the President has done
his duty in stating the fact? Upon this subject, so very important, are
they to be kept in the dark? Mr. R. could not conceive any turn of the
debate on this resolution that could produce a discussion of the merits
of the Message referred to the Committee of the Whole. If the President
shall say the information he gives us ought not to be made public, he
would answer for himself, and he believed he could answer for his
friends, that they would not seek a public discussion. And if the
information is imparted without confidence, the House, if it see fit,
can itself control a public discussion. Mr. R. concluded with saying
that, in the present case, he was for deciding on the resolution with
open doors.

Mr. S. SMITH thought this point ought in a great measure to be
determined by the custom of the House in similar cases. He did not
assert it as a fact, but, from recollection, he believed it was so, that
when a call was made for papers in the case of the British Treaty, the
question was referred to a Committee of the Whole, and there fully
discussed. According to his recollection, one side of the House called
for papers on the principle that, after negotiations were terminated,
the House had a right to information before they made a grant of money
under a treaty, but acknowledging that a call for such information
might be improper during a pending negotiation. He was one of those who
thought it proper, on that occasion, that the House should have the
papers; but he also thought it improper, and had then so declared, to
call for papers during a pending negotiation. Whether in the present
instance a negotiation was pending or was not, he did not know. He was,
therefore, for postponing the resolution till this was known to the
House.

Mr. DANA said that he did not know, nor had he heard from any quarter,
that there was any negotiation depending respecting the cession of
Louisiana. The President has informed us of the fact. All that the
resolution asks are official documents respecting the cession, with the
stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which it is to be
delivered up. He could not see the impropriety of such a request. But if
the President deem it improper to furnish the information, we do not
assert our right to demand it. There are two views in which this
information may be important; that which may throw light on the
boundaries of the province as ceded; and another, whether the province
is to be ceded to the French in the condition it shall be in when
actually delivered up, or whether subject to the conditions in which it
was held according to treaty by Spain. This is important information to
guide our deliberations; information not depending upon an existing
negotiation, but upon a negotiation decided.

Mr. GRISWOLD called for the taking of the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMILIE was in favor of the widest publicity in every case where it
would not prove injurious; and there were, in his opinion, very few
cases in which it ought not to take place. He could not, however,
withhold one remark; that gentlemen should object to the mode now
proposed, a mode similar to that adopted in like cases, greatly
surprised him. [He here quoted the proceedings of the House on a call
for papers in the case of the British Treaty.] That case furnished a
precedent, by which it appeared that a motion for information was
referred to a Committee of the Whole for a more full discussion.

Mr. DAVIS observed that, as he lived in that district of country most
materially affected by the subject before the House, he thought it
proper to express his opinion on the motion. He said he did not know
what reason could be assigned for the motion, but that expressed by the
gentleman from Virginia, to go into a Committee of the Whole in private,
to propose certain resolutions that required secrecy.

Mr. D. said it had been his purpose yesterday to have submitted certain
resolutions, which he should have done, but for the motion of the
gentleman from Connecticut calling for information; after it was made he
was willing to wait until all information was obtained that could be
furnished. Suppose we go into a Committee of the Whole, what light can
we expect from their deliberation? We can gain nothing. But let the
call for information prevail; let us draw from the President such
information as he may think it proper to give; and let us then refer
that information to a Committee of the Whole, and they will be able to
deliberate wisely. What use can it be to take a step from which no
benefit can be derived? As to the call on the President, he will not
give us any thing that is improper. How does the gentleman from Virginia
know what light this information may throw on the subject? Is he
prepared to say it will throw no light on this subject? If he is, Mr. D.
said he himself was not. He might have ways of acquiring the secrets of
the Cabinet; but for himself he had no such opportunities. Mr. D.
concluded by declaring himself against the motion.

Mr. RANDOLPH was compelled again reluctantly to trespass on the
indulgence of the House, to assure them, and the gentleman from
Kentucky, that his motion did not comprehend a refusal to agree to the
call for information made by the gentleman from Connecticut. After going
into committee, they might, perhaps, either by a unanimous vote, or by
that of a majority, agree to the resolution. Benefit might arise, and no
mischief possibly could, from going into a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HUGER must acknowledge that he could not understand the object of
those who were for refusing this information. If they had any objection
to asking the information, let them inform us what it is. And if they
have no objection, why go into a Committee of the Whole; which, if gone
into, must be with closed doors? The question alluded to in the British
Treaty was very different from this. In that case, one part of the House
thought they had a right to demand the information of the Executive, and
that he was bound to deliver it; while the other part of the House
neither acknowledged the right to demand, nor the obligation to obey.
The present case was entirely different. We ask nothing but what the
Executive shall think proper to furnish, we are as cautious as we can
possibly be; we even go so far as to put words in the President's mouth,
if he shall think there is any impropriety in giving the information.
Gentlemen certainly have confidence in the Executive, that he will tell
us if the information is improper to be furnished.

Mr. H. could not but express his surprise that the House had received no
official documents on this important subject. He could not comprehend
why Congress should not know the contents of the convention. If proper,
we ought to have these documents; and if not proper, we ought to have a
reason for it. The country was in a state of serious alarm; and it might
have a bad effect if something was not immediately done, and a
disposition exhibited to act, in case it should prove necessary.

Mr. SMILIE said the gentleman, from South Carolina (Mr. HUGER) was
incorrect, when he stated that, in the case of the British Treaty one
set of gentlemen had contended for the right of the House to demand
papers. If this had been so, the resolution then proposed would have
been peremptory; whereas the fact was that it was qualified by an
exception of such papers as the President might consider it improper to
furnish. [Mr. SMILIE here quoted the journals, which confirmed his
remark.]

Mr. GREGG said it would be allowed that this was an important
resolution, which related to an important subject. This was, he
believed, the first instance in which a resolution allowed to be
important, had been refused a reference to a Committee of the Whole. On
this principle his vote would be decided. If the motion did not prevail
he should then move that the resolution should be printed before it was
acted upon.

Mr. GRISWOLD would not object to the reference if the object were to
obtain a more full discussion of the resolution. He was generally in
favor of such references, as the discussion was conducted in a Committee
of the Whole on a freer scale than in the House. On this principle it
was, that the call for papers respecting the British Treaty was referred
to a Committee of the Whole. But it had not been referred to a Committee
of the Whole on the state of the Union.

He, however, understood the object of gentlemen to be to refer the
resolution to a Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of discussing it
with closed doors. If that were the object, he should oppose it. For, he
would say, nothing of secrecy could arise out of the discussion of this
resolution. He did not wish that a resolution so important should be
referred to a secret committee. If gentlemen mean to deny us this
information, let them deny it in public. Let them not do it in a secret
committee. Surely they can have no such unworthy motives.

As to the case of 1796, under the British Treaty, the ground of
opposition was this: It was claimed that the House had a right to decide
upon a treaty, and to establish this point papers were called for. And
on the decision of the question, on the granting or refusing the
application, depended the establishment of the right of the House to
participate in the treaty-making power. This right was denied by those
who voted against the call. But in this case there was no difference as
to the power of the House. The President in his Message had expressly
stated that the cession would have weight in the deliberations of the
Legislature. This, then, being a case in which it is proper to
legislate, shall we go to work blindfold, without having all the
information possessed by the Executive, that it is proper we should
possess? What do we know respecting the cession? Though made for more
than one year, we have no information, except that contained in the
Message, which barely mentions the fact. For these reasons Mr. G. hoped
the motion would not prevail, as its avowed object was not for a more
full discussion, but for the purpose of going into a secret committee.
If gentlemen mean to deny us the information we ask, let the denial be
public; and if they grant it, there is no reason against their doing it
publicly.

Mr. RANDOLPH.--The gentleman from Connecticut tells us that this subject
is referred to in the Message of the President, and that on it we are
called by him to legislate. That subject has been referred to a
Committee of the Whole; and yet, he says, it is improper to refer this
resolution to the same committee. This may be logic; but I confess, if
it is, I do not understand it. He says if the object of reference be for
a more ample discussion, he will be in favor of it; but not so, if it be
to send it to a secret committee. Does the gentleman mean to insinuate
that the debates of this body are for the entertainment of the ladies
who honor us with their presence; or that as soon as our doors are shut,
our ears also are shut to all useful and necessary information? If the
doors shall be closed, cannot we still agree to the resolution? However
gentlemen may persist in the course they have taken, I shall not permit
the warmth of their remarks, or that of my own feelings, to betray me
into a debate on points which the House have determined shall be
discussed with closed doors. For my own part, I am ready to declare that
I have arguments to advance, that it is not my wish to advance with open
doors.

Mr. BACON said the resolution simply called for information respecting
the cession of the province of Louisiana to the French. He did not see
the end to be answered by committing it. Is there any doubt that we
shall not stand in need of information when we come to discuss points
connected with this subject? It appeared to him they would. He was
therefore against the reference.

Mr. S. SMITH.--The gentleman from Connecticut has candidly admitted that
it is customary in such cases to make a reference; that he is not in
favor of the reference being made to a committee with shut doors; but if
the object were to obtain a free discussion, he would not object to it.
He is told that a full and free discussion cannot be had without such a
reference, and yet he persists in his hostility to the motion. He had
been told so by the mover, and common sense would have told him so at
first; yet he is for taking advantage of the mover, and for shutting out
the arguments he has to urge. The gentleman is mistaken in his statement
of the motives of the different sides of the House in the discussion on
a call for papers, in 1796, when he represents one side as claiming a
right to participate in the treaty-making power. He recollected it had
been charged upon them; but they had denied it. We contended, said Mr.
S., that when a treaty was formed, appropriating a large sum of money,
we had a right to appropriate or not to appropriate the money; but we
never assumed the right to say whether the treaty was concluded or not.
Afterwards, gentlemen themselves, if he recollected right, moved a
resolution that it was expedient to carry the treaty into effect, by
which they did admit the right of the House. Mr. S. said he had no
previous knowledge of what the gentleman from Virginia meant by his
motion; he might perhaps wish to amend the resolution; but when he says
he has arguments that he cannot urge without shut doors, he trusted that
indulgence would be allowed him, or there would be a denial of justice.

Mr. DANA said, there was a magic of language, to those unaccustomed to
parliamentary language, in the House resolving itself into a committee,
and that committee returning itself back into the House, both composed
of the same members, that made the proceedings of public bodies appear
ridiculous. But there were substantial benefits derived from the
observance of these forms. There was a fuller and freer discussion;
every member spoke as often as he chose, and they enjoyed the Speaker's
advice. There were, besides, two discussions and decisions, instead of
one. He admitted, therefore, the propriety of such procedure in all
cases where there was an important principle involved. But in this
instance there was no important principle to discuss. There was an
important principle involved in the famous question of 1796. It was
therefore right to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. He did not know
what principle was to be discussed on this reference, unless it was the
want of information. This he most sensibly felt; and those gentlemen who
also felt it, might, he thought, be indulged by those who possess all
information on the subject. If any gentleman, however, will say that any
important principle is involved in the resolution, he was ready to go
into Committee of the Whole, though not with closed doors.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays on Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion,
to refer the resolution of Mr. GRISWOLD to a Committee of the Whole on
the state of the Union, and carried--yeas 49, nays 39, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, Theodorus Bailey,
      Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas
      Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard
      Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer,
      William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna,
      Joseph Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes,
      George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L.
      Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr.,
      Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John
      Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah
      Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford,
      Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr.,
      David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abraham Trigg, John
      Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van
      Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

      NAYS.--John Bacon, Phanuel Bishop, Thos. Boude, John
      Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport,
      Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, Wm. Dickson, Calvin Goddard,
      Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings,
      William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson,
      Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer
      Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, James Mott, Elias
      Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William
      Shepard, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, Benjamin
      Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thos.
      Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel
      Williams, and Henry Woods.

On motion of Mr. GRISWOLD, the House immediately went into Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. RANDOLPH rose, and observed that he held in his hands certain
resolutions connected with the Message of the President, relative to the
late proceedings at New Orleans, the discussion of which had been
ordered to be carried on with closed doors. He asked the decision of the
question, whether, previously to offering his resolutions, the doors
ought not to be closed? The resolutions he meant to submit grew out of
the Message. If the House, however, insisted upon their being then read,
he had no indisposition to read them.

The CHAIRMAN considered the committee as incompetent to clearing the
galleries. He thought it must be the act of the House.

Mr. DAWSON inquired if the same rules that applied to the House, did not
also apply to Committees of the Whole?

Mr. RANDOLPH called for the reading of the President's Message
respecting New Orleans.

Mr. GRISWOLD said there was other business, not requiring secrecy,
referred to the committee.

Mr. RANDOLPH repeated his call for the reading of the President's
Message.

The CHAIRMAN asked what Message?

Mr. RANDOLPH replied, the confidential Message.

Mr. GRISWOLD said that could not be read with open doors.

The CHAIRMAN said the doors could not be closed without an order of the
House.

Mr. S. SMITH observed that it had been customary to clear the galleries
before the House went into committee. To save time, he would move that
the committee should rise, in order to obtain an order of the House to
that effect.

Mr. GRISWOLD hoped the committee would not rise. The business he had
proposed was of a public, not of a private nature. It was also of a
pressing nature, and ought not to be postponed for any other business.

Mr. DANA hoped, indeed, for the honor of the House, they would not
exhibit the spectacle of wasting time in going into committee and then
coming out of it without doing any thing, but would proceed to the
public business.

Mr. RUTLEDGE.--The gentleman from Virginia holds in his hands
resolutions that require secrecy. After deciding on the motion of the
gentleman from Connecticut, he will not be precluded from offering these
resolutions.

Mr. EUSTIS said if the House had resolved itself into a committee for
the express purpose of taking into consideration the resolution of the
gentleman from Connecticut, it would be proper to give it the preference
over any other business; and in that case he should have been as ready
at this moment as at any other to offer his objections to it. But if it
were understood that the House had resolved itself generally into a
Committee on the state of the Union, one gentleman from Virginia having
made a motion, and another gentleman from Connecticut having afterwards
made another motion, that made by the last gentleman being junior in
point of time ought to be last attended to. The other gentleman's motion
was first in course; and if the gentleman who offered it desired the
galleries to be cleared, he had an undoubted right to an order to that
effect.

Mr. MACON (Speaker) remarked that a Committee of the whole House was one
committee, and a Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union
another committee. They were distinct committees. The last was never
formed for special purposes. He did not recollect that this had ever
been done. Whereas the other committee was always formed for a special
purpose. The difficulty in this case had arisen from referring the
confidential Message to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union. He believed it would be well to rise, and separate the two
subjects that had been referred to the Committee on the state of the
Union.

Mr. GRISWOLD did not understand what the gentleman from Massachusetts
meant by priority of motion. The Chairman had determined that the motion
of the gentleman from Virginia was not in order, as it could not be
submitted to a public committee. After this disposition of that motion,
none remained before the committee other than his own. In point of
priority, he rose, therefore, to have his resolution then decided upon.
With regard to the proposition of the honorable Speaker, he did not see
any reason for it. Was it not as well to decide on this resolution in
this committee as in any other committee? Why, then, rise for the
purpose of referring it to a secret committee?

Mr. S. SMITH said, the gentleman from Massachusetts meant by his remarks
that the Message of the President had precedence. The gentleman from
Connecticut was only now urging what had been decided against him in the
House. He thinks he has now an advantage, and presses it.

Mr. S. said, he had not a doubt that the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. RUTLEDGE) is very sincere in his opinion, that, if we will agree to
submit all power to them, they will indulge us by agreeing to certain
subordinate points. But gentlemen will excuse us. We have already taken
great pains to divest them of power, and we are not yet disposed to
return it into their hands.

We are of opinion that the Message ought to be discussed with closed
doors; that is the intention of the motion; let us not take advantage of
those who have arguments to offer which they wish not to submit with
open doors; let the committee rise, and the galleries be cleared.

Mr. DANA, in one point, fully agreed with the gentleman from Maryland.
They had taken great pains to get power. But he regretted that any
political party allusion whatever had been made on this subject. He had
supposed it so important, so deeply interesting to all America, that he
had hoped all spirit of party would have slept during our deliberations
on it; and that we should have shown that we entertained but one
sentiment, and were ready, if necessary, to extend one arm in defence of
our invaded rights.

Mr. L. R. MORRIS expressed his disagreement with the Speaker on a point
of order--

When the question was taken on the rising of the committee, and carried
in the affirmative--ayes 49, noes 37.

The committee accordingly rose, and the Chairman reported that they had
come to no resolution.

A motion was made to adjourn, on which Mr. GRISWOLD called the yeas and
nays; which were--yeas 38, nays 51.

_Navigation of the Mississippi._

[SECRET SESSION.]

The House was then cleared of all persons, except the members and the
Clerk: Whereupon the House resumed the consideration of a confidential
communication from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, received the
thirty-first ultimo.

_Ordered_, That the Committee of the whole House on the state of the
Union, to whom was referred the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES of the twenty-second and thirtieth ultimo, be discharged from the
consideration thereof; and that the said Message, together with the
documents transmitted therewith, be committed to a Committee of the
whole House to-morrow.

On a motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following
resolution:

      _Resolved_, That this House receive, with great
      sensibility, the information of a disposition in certain
      officers of the Spanish Government at New Orleans, to
      obstruct the navigation of the river Mississippi, as
      secured to the United States by the most solemn
      stipulations.

      That, adhering to the humane and wise policy which ought
      ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United
      States have always professed to be governed; willing, at
      the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the
      unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than
      to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic
      Majesty; and relying with perfect confidence on the
      vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the
      issue of such measures as that department of the Government
      shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating
      the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their
      duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable
      determination to maintain the boundaries, and the rights of
      navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as
      established by existing treaties.

_Ordered_, That the said motion be referred to the Committee of the
whole House last appointed.


THURSDAY, January 6.

_Cession of Louisiana._

[PUBLIC SESSION.]

Mr. GRISWOLD moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee
of the Whole on his resolution respecting Louisiana.

Mr. DAWSON was opposed to the motion, for reasons before assigned.

Mr. GRISWOLD said the gentleman did not understand what he had proposed.
It had been the wish of gentlemen to separate the consideration of his
resolution from other subjects referred to the Committee of the Whole on
the state of the Union. For which purpose he had been willing to refer
it to a Committee of the Whole. But he was averse to referring it to a
secret committee; as he did not perceive its connection with any subject
that required secrecy. The discussion on it ought, in his opinion, to be
public. It was not necessary for him to repeat that it was of a pressing
nature. It respected the obtaining information on a subject, he would
say, of greater importance than any which could come before Congress
that session. One third of the session was gone, and yet the Legislature
had no information before them. He hoped there was no disposition
entertained by gentlemen to embarrass this proposition with points
unconnected with it. The proposition was extremely simple. Called upon
by the President to legislate on the subject of the cession of
Louisiana, we do not know the precise state of that cession. To
legislate correctly, we want to be informed of all the circumstances. If
gentlemen are disposed to deny us this information, let the denial be
public. Do not let them refer this motion to a secret committee, where
they may deny us the information we ask on reasons which we cannot
divulge. Mr. G. concluded by calling for the yeas and nays.

Mr. S. SMITH asked if this were not the precise motion decided yesterday
by the House? He thought it had been referred to a Committee of the
Whole. He had considered it as having taken that course. When we go into
committee the gentlemen will see whether we shall refuse them the
information. Perhaps we shall see that it is of such a nature as we
ought to possess. He did not himself know how that was; nor did he mean
to commit himself by any remarks which he had made. He trusted gentlemen
would remember their vote yesterday, and not suffer themselves to be put
out of their course by this extraordinary mode of conducting business.

Mr. LOWNDES demanded whether, even if the motion were the same, there
was any impropriety in putting it again to-day; and whether it were not
perfectly consistent with the rules of order to go into a committee, and
take up the resolution? If there ever was a resolution offered to that
House which ought to obtain a unanimous vote, it was that of his
honorable friend from Connecticut; which proposes simply the calling for
such information as the President might see fit to give on a most
important subject that had excited the sensibility of the whole nation.
The President himself, in his Message, alludes to the subject as one
which may require Legislative interposition, and gentlemen persist in
refusing us this information. It was a most extraordinary circumstance
in the annals of the United States, that, notwithstanding the magnitude
of the cession of Louisiana, the length of time since it was made, and
the necessary consequence of having a new and powerful neighbor on our
frontier, we had yet no official information on the subject. The
President in his Message really tells us nothing. He says "the cession
of the Spanish province of Louisiana to France, which took place in the
course of the late war,"--this we had been told long before by the
public prints, and in a discussion before the British Parliament--but he
goes on and says--"will, if carried into effect, make a change in the
aspect of our foreign relations, which will doubtless have just weight
in any deliberations of the Legislature connected with that subject." To
this the understanding of every schoolboy is competent. It was really
surprising that gentlemen should wish to reject such a call as this. It
was not probable that the President had been so unmindful of his duty as
not to have demanded an explanation through our Ministers at the Court
of Spain, or at Paris. If he has this information, and it is of a nature
proper to be known to us, we ought immediately to obtain it, that we may
not be slumbering at our posts on an infraction of our rights.

Mr. L. suspected gentlemen had not correctly attended to the resolution.
It only requests the President to lay such information before the House
as he may think proper. Are gentlemen then afraid to trust to the
discretion of the President? Are they apprehensive lest he should
communicate that which is improper? He hoped they had more confidence in
the Executive. He thought this call should precede any resolutions. He
could not disconnect the shutting of the port of New Orleans from the
cession of Louisiana. There appeared to be a natural connection between
these two events. He was afraid that the shutting the port was ominous
of the disposition of Spain to cede the province to France,
independently of any encumbrances she may have imposed upon herself. He
was afraid France in this transaction would consult her interests and
convenience, and not our rights. We well knew the grounds on which that
nation interpreted treaties, and we had no reason from that knowledge to
repress our fears. An observation of the gentleman from Virginia had
given him great uneasiness. That gentleman had told us, if Spain had
ceded Louisiana to France she had a right to cede it. This Mr. L. was
not prepared to say. He did not think Spain had a right to give to
America what she pleased; much less give her a new neighbor, under
circumstances different from those by which she held the province. He
was not, however, then disposed to discuss the abstract question
involved in this subject. He trusted the resolution calling for
information would be agreed to. The House need not fear that, in asking
this information, they would not speak the sense of the people; and, if
other measures were necessary, they would also, in adopting them, speak
the sense of the nation.

Mr. BACON said it was not uncommon to hear of extraordinary occurrences
in that House. One mode of reasoning yesterday had great weight, that
asserted a connection between the resolution and the subject of New
Orleans, which had been taken up and referred to a committee with closed
doors. One subject appeared to him to be not only nearly connected, but
to form an essential part of the other. For what purpose this resolution
should be separated from the general subject, he could not conceive. Why
do we want information, but that we may have a more clear view of the
general subject? He could not see any detached purpose for which it was
required. Why then divide it into little detached parts? Until he could
hear reasons for such a division, he should be against the reference.

Mr. HEMPHILL observed that the gentleman was mistaken in what passed
yesterday. The gentleman from Maryland had first stated the subjects as
similar; that ground was afterwards abandoned, and they were considered
as distinct. There were only two points connected with the subject
before the House in which documents could be required or secrecy
necessary. The one related to the cession of Louisiana; the other to the
shutting the port of New Orleans. The former, though not referred to a
committee, was as important as the latter, which had been referred. In
the last case we deemed it important to have and request papers. The
resolution before them related to the first point; it had been deemed of
sufficient importance to refer it to a committee, and this afforded good
reasons for calling for papers respecting the cession. He begged leave
to refer to the Message, which says the cession "will, if carried into
effect, make a change in the aspect of our foreign relations, which will
doubtless have just weight in any deliberations of the Legislature
connected with that subject." The House will perceive that the language
of the Message is hypothetical--the words are, "if carried into effect."
How then can we deliberate on this subject, unless we know the degree of
probability there is, that it will be carried into effect? A knowledge
of the circumstances necessary to ascertain this, appeared to be
absolutely indispensable.

If likely to be carried into effect, the next question is, as to the
time when it will be carried into effect. When these two inquiries were
solved, another naturally offered itself: Is France to take the province
subject to existing treaties, or as she shall receive it at the time of
delivery? All these circumstances it was necessary for Congress to know,
before they could act correctly.

What necessity there was for secrecy in the discussion of this
resolution, Mr. HEMPHILL could not conceive. All the information we have
on the subject is contained in the President's Message, which every
person in the United States knows as well as we do. It appeared to him
that when their deliberations turned on facts which every body knew,
they ought to be public. His ideas of secrecy were these: that policy
might require certain facts to be kept secret for a time; but, when made
known, their arguments on them ought not to be secret. In this opinion
he was strengthened by the rule of the House. [Mr. H. here read the rule
on that point, which prescribes that the galleries shall be cleared
whenever a confidential communication shall be received from the
President, or whenever the Speaker or any other member shall inform the
House that he has communications to make which he conceives ought to be
kept secret.] Mr. H. asked on which branch of this rule could the
arguments of gentlemen be predicated? The President had not sent them a
confidential communication, nor had any member said he had
communications to make which he conceived ought to be kept secret. The
information referred to in the rule meant facts, and not arguments drawn
from facts. He concluded by saying he saw no occasion whatever for
discussing this proposition with closed doors.

Mr. DAWSON.--The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. LOWNDES) says there
is a material connection between the shutting the port of New Orleans
and the cession of Louisiana. After, then, that part of the discussion
which related to New Orleans had been ordered to be conducted with shut
doors, how proper was it in him to introduce into debate a subject
intimately connected with it? His opposition to the present motion did
not arise from an indisposition fully to discuss the subject to which it
referred; but from an indisposition to delay the discussion of the
motion offered by his colleague. Against the present motion he should
vote, because it promised nothing useful, and might be mischievous. We
have been told that this subject is important and pressing. That it was
important he felt; but he did not believe it was pressing. He could say,
if the time should ever arrive when it became that House to act, this
was not the time. When the time did arrive, he was prepared to act.
Gentlemen were very anxious on this subject. He rejoiced to witness
their anxiety. But he and his friends were not now to hear who were the
friends of the Western country. The people of that country doubted not
the protection of the Government. They were warmly attached to the
Government, and knew that every thing would be done, that ought to be
done, to protect and defend their rights.

Mr. BACON said, if he understood the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr.
HEMPHILL,) he perfectly agreed with him in opinion, that this resolution
was connected with the subject of New Orleans. He agreed with him as to
their inseparable connection. But the only difference was that they
inferred opposite consequences from the same premises. He, Mr. B.,
contended that the resolution made a part of the same general subject,
and ought not to be divided from it. They say it ought to be divided.

Mr. HEMPHILL, replied that he had spoken as plainly as he could. He had
said the subjects were distinct.

Mr. GODDARD.--The gentleman from Massachusetts yesterday told us the
call for information ought to be public, though the information itself
should be secret. This reasoning had been satisfactory to him then; he
had hoped it would have also proved so to-day. But it appears that he is
now for sending us to a secret committee. Mr. G. said in his opinion,
the call ought to be public, whatever the nature of the information
might be. This information gentlemen will either deny or grant. They say
it is not to be denied. Why then go into a committee? And if granted,
why not grant it without assigning reasons, as well as with assigning
them? Are we to be told by the gentleman from Virginia, there is no
occasion for this call; that we have information enough? How does that
honorable gentleman get his information? If from the cabinet, are we,
the representatives of the people, to obtain it from him? Surely this
will be degrading to our characters. We may believe it is true as coming
from him, but, as representatives, we should spurn at receiving it in
such a channel. We want official information, but gentlemen say they
want to go into secret committee on this resolution. What will be the
good of this? Though he could not say what was done in secret yesterday,
he might say what had not been done. They had done nothing; and if they
went into secret session again, the consequence would be the same.

Mr. RANDOLPH felt extremely reluctant to rise in this stage of the
discussion, but he deemed it time to repel insinuations so frequently
thrown out as perhaps to gain some credit, if they were permitted to
pass entirely unnoticed. We are averse to take up the motion of the
gentleman from Connecticut, and wherefore? Because, as our opponents
would fain have it believed, we are insensible to the vast interest
affected by the obstruction of the Mississippi? No, sir, because we are
alive to this delicate and momentous subject; because we wish to act
upon it; because we wish to go into committee on the confidential
Message of the Executive; because the information required by the motion
before you is not necessary to determine us in the course which we
ought, and, I trust, will pursue; and because these preliminary
questions, whatever be their object, are, in effect, only calculated to
retard and to embarrass the decision of this House on this great
question. Sir, I am content that gentlemen should repeat after each
other the trite observations which have been so often reiterated of the
magnitude of the object in question. I am content that they should make
the best possible display of their ardor on this occasion. But wherefore
this exhibition of a zeal so inordinate as to arrogate to itself all
sensibility to the national welfare? Since gentlemen insist upon it,
since they provoke the discussion, I must request to be indulged in some
remarks on the history of this subject. And in reply to the gentleman
from Connecticut, (Mr. GODDARD,) I must be permitted to observe that
such of my information as may have been derived from the Executive is
equally accessible to every member of this House, and I believe to every
reputable citizen in the Union, who chooses to apply for it. That,
however, which I am about to present, is derived from a source
accessible to the whole world. It is to be found in a document of
inestimable value, (the debates of the Virginia Convention in 1788,) and
might truly be said to be official. It is an account given in his
official character of member of Congress, and under the old
confederation, by that able and eminent man, that faithful and
illustrious public servant, the late Governor of Virginia, to the
Convention of that State, at their requisition. At his own suggestion
the Legislature of the State had declined to insist upon it. To the
Convention it was given, (however reluctantly,) as to a paramount
authority. [Here Mr. E. read Mr. Monroe's speech.][73]

      "After some desultory conversation, Mr. MONROE spoke as
      follows: Mr. Chairman--My conduct respecting the
      transactions of Congress upon this interesting subject,
      since my return to the State, has been well known to many
      worthy gentlemen here. I have been often called upon before
      this, in a public line, and particularly in the last
      Assembly, whilst I was present, for information in regard
      to these transactions; but have heretofore declined it, and
      for reasons that were held satisfactory. Being amenable,
      upon the principles of the Federal compact, to the
      Legislature, for my conduct in Congress, it cannot be
      doubted, if required, it was my duty to obey their
      directions; but that honorable body thought it best to
      dispense with such demand. The right in this Assembly is
      unquestionably more complete, having power paramount to
      that; but even here I could wish it had not been exerted as
      I understand it to be, by going into committee for that
      purpose. Before, however, I enter into this subject, I
      cannot but observe, it has given me pain to hear it treated
      by honorable gentlemen in a manner that has appeared not
      altogether free from exception. For they have not gone into
      it fully, and given a proper view of the transaction in
      every part, but of those only which preceded, and were
      subsequent to that, which had been the particular object of
      inquiry; a conduct that has seemed too much calculated to
      make an impression favorable to their wishes in the present
      instance. But, in making this observation, I owe it to
      those gentlemen to declare, that it is my opinion such
      omission has proceeded, not from intention, but their
      having forgotten facts, or to some cause not obvious to me,
      and which I make no doubt they will readily explain.

      "The policy of this State, respecting this river, has
      always been the same. It has contemplated but one object,
      the opening it for the use of the inhabitants, whose
      interest depended on it; and in this she has, in my
      opinion, shown her wisdom and magnanimity. I may, I
      believe, with propriety say, that all the measures that
      have at any time been taken by Congress for that purpose,
      were adopted at the instance of this State. There was a
      time, it is true, sir, when even this State, in some
      measure, abandoned the object, by authorizing its cession
      to the Court of Spain. But let us take all circumstances
      into view, as they were at that time, and I am persuaded it
      will by no means show a departure from this liberal and
      enlightened system of policy, although it may manifest an
      accommodation to the exigencies which pressed on us at the
      time. The Southern States were overrun, and in possession
      of the enemy. The governments of South Carolina and Georgia
      were prostrate, and opposition there at an end. North
      Carolina made but a feeble resistance; and Virginia herself
      was greatly harassed by the enemy in force at that time in
      the heart of the country, and by impressments for her own
      and the defence of the Southern States. In addition to
      this, the finances of the United States were in a
      deplorable condition, if not totally exhausted; and France,
      our ally, seemed anxious for peace; and as the means of
      bringing the war to a more happy and speedy conclusion, the
      object of this cession was the hopes of uniting Spain in it
      with all her forces. If I recollect aright, too, at this
      moment, the Minister of the United States, at the Court of
      Madrid, informed Congress of the difficulty he found in
      prevailing upon that Court to acknowledge our independence,
      or take any measure in our favor, suggested the jealousy
      with which it viewed our settlements in the Western
      country, and the probability of better success, provided we
      would cede the navigation of this river, as the
      consideration. The latter circumstances were made known to
      the Legislature, and they had their weight. All inferior
      objects must yield to the safety of the society itself. A
      resolution passed to that effect. An act of Congress
      likewise passed; and the Minister of the United States had
      full authority to relinquish this valuable right to that
      Court, upon the condition above stated. But what was the
      issue of this proposition? Was any treaty made with Spain
      that obtained any acknowledgment of our independence,
      although at war with Great Britain; and such acknowledgment
      would have cost her nothing? Was a loan of money
      accomplished? In short, does it appear that even Spain
      herself thought it an object of any importance? So soon as
      the war ended, this resolution was rescinded. The power to
      make such a treaty was revoked. So that this system of
      policy was departed from, only for a short time, for the
      most important object that can be conceived, and resumed
      again as soon as it possibly could be.

      "After the peace, it became the business of Congress to
      investigate the relation of these States to the different
      powers of the earth, in a more extensive view than they had
      hitherto done, and particularly in the commercial line; and
      to make arrangements for entering into treaties with them
      on such terms as might be mutually beneficial for each
      party. As the result of the deliberations of that day, it
      was resolved, 'That commercial treaties be formed, if
      possible, with said powers, those of Europe in particular,
      Spain included, upon similar principles; and three
      Commissioners, Mr. Adams, Mr. Franklin, and Mr. Jefferson,
      be appointed for that purpose.' So that an arrangement for
      a treaty of commerce with Spain had already been taken.
      Whilst these powers were in force, a representative from
      Spain arrived, authorized to treat with the United States
      on the interfering claims of the two nations, respecting
      the Mississippi, and the boundaries, and other concerns,
      wherein they were respectively interested. A similar
      commission was given to the honorable Secretary of Foreign
      Affairs, on the part of the United States, with these
      ultimata, 'That he enter into no treaty, compact, or
      convention whatever, with the said representative of Spain,
      which did not stipulate our right to the navigation of the
      Mississippi, and the boundaries as established in our
      treaty with Great Britain.' And thus the late negotiation
      commenced, under auspices, as I supposed, very favorable to
      the wishes of the United States; for Spain had become
      sensible of the propriety of cultivating the friendship of
      these States. Knowing our claim to the navigation of the
      river, she had sent a Minister hither principally to treat
      on that point; and the time would not be remote when, under
      the increasing population of the country, the inhabitants
      would be able to open it without our assistance or her
      consent. These circumstances being considered, was it not
      presumable she intended to make a merit of her concession
      to our wishes, and to agree to an accommodation upon that
      subject, that would not only be satisfactory, but highly
      pleasing to the United States? But what was the issue of
      this negotiation? How was it terminated? Has it forwarded
      the particular object in view, or otherwise promoted the
      interests and the harmony of the States, or any of them!
      Eight or ten months elapsed without any communications of
      its progress to Congress. At length a letter was received
      from the Secretary, stating that difficulties had arisen in
      his negotiation with the representative of Spain, which, in
      his opinion, should be so managed as that even their
      existence should remain a secret for the present; and
      proposing that a committee be appointed with full power to
      direct and instruct him in every case relative to the
      proposed treaty. As the only ultimata appointed in his
      instructions respected the Mississippi and the boundaries,
      it readily occurred that these occasioned the difficulties
      alluded to, and were those he wished to remove. And, for
      many reasons, this appeared, at least to me, an
      extraordinary proposition. By the Articles of Confederation
      nine States are necessary to enter into treaties. The
      instruction is the foundation of the treaty; for if it is
      formed agreeable thereto, good faith requires that it be
      ratified. The practice of Congress has also been always, I
      believe, in conformity to this idea. The instructions under
      which our commercial treaties have been made, were carried
      by nine States. Those under which the Secretary now acted
      were passed by nine States. The proposition, then, would
      be, that the powers which, under the constitution, nine
      States only were competent to, should be transferred to a
      committee, and the object thereby to disengage himself from
      the ultimata already mentioned in his existing
      instructions. In this light the subject was taken up, and
      on these principles discussed. The Secretary, Mr. Jay,
      being called before Congress to explain the difficulties
      mentioned in his letter, presented to their view the
      project of a treaty of commerce, containing, as he
      supposed, advantageous stipulations in our favor, in that
      line; in consideration for which we were to contract to
      forbear the use of the navigation of the river Mississippi
      for the term of 25 or 30 years, and earnestly advised our
      adopting it. The subject now took a decided form; there was
      no further ambiguity in it, and we were surprised, for
      reasons that have been already given, that he had taken up
      the subject of commerce at all. We were greatly surprised
      it should form the principal object of the project, and
      that a partial or temporary sacrifice of that interest, for
      the advancement of which the negotiation was set on foot,
      should be the consideration proposed to be given for it.
      But the honorable Secretary urged, that it was necessary to
      stand well with Spain; that the commercial project was a
      beneficial one, and should not be neglected; that a
      stipulation to forbear the use contained an acknowledgment,
      on her part, of the right in the United States; that we
      were in no condition to take the river, and therefore gave
      nothing for it; with other reasons which, perhaps, I have
      forgotten; for the subject in detail has nearly escaped my
      memory. We differed with the honorable Secretary, almost in
      every respect. We admitted, indeed, the propriety of
      standing well with Spain, but supposed we might accomplish
      that end, at least, on equal terms. We considered the
      stipulation to forbear the use, as a species of barter,
      that should never be countenanced in the councils of the
      American States, since it might tend to the destruction of
      the society itself; for a forbearance of the use of one
      river, might lead to more extensive consequences; to that
      of the Chesapeake, the Potomac, or any other of the rivers
      that emptied into it. In short, that the councils of the
      confederacy should be conducted with more magnanimity and
      candor, should contemplate the benefit of all parts upon
      common principles, and not the sacrifice of one part for
      that of another. There appeared to us a material difference
      between stipulating by treaty to forbear the use, and not
      being able to open the river. The former would be
      considered by the inhabitants of the Western country as an
      act of hostility; the latter might be justified by our
      inability. And, with respect to the commercial part of the
      project, we really thought it an ill-advised one on its own
      merits solely.

      "Thus was this project brought before Congress, and so far
      as I recollect, in this form, and upon these principles. It
      was the subject of tedious and lengthy discussion in that
      honorable body. Every distinct measure that was taken I do
      not now remember, nor do I suppose it of consequence. I
      have shown the outlines of the transaction, which is, if I
      apprehend rightly, all that the committee wish to possess.
      The communications of the Secretary were referred to a
      Committee of the whole House. The Delegates of the seven
      easternmost States voted that the ultimata in the
      Secretary's instructions be repealed; which was reported to
      the House, and entered on the journal by the Secretary of
      Congress, that the question was carried. Upon this entry, a
      constitutional question arose to this effect: 'Nine States
      being necessary, by the Federal Constitution, to give an
      instruction; and seven having repealed a part of an
      instruction so given, for the formation of a treaty with a
      foreign power, so as to alter its import, and authorize,
      under the remaining part thereof, the formation of a
      treaty, on principles altogether different from what the
      said instruction originally contemplated, can such
      remaining part be considered as in force, and
      constitutionally obligatory?' We pressed on Congress for a
      decision on this point often, but without effect.
      Notwithstanding this, I understood it was the intention of
      the Secretary to proceed and conclude a treaty, in
      conformity to his project, with the Minister of Spain. In
      this situation I left Congress. What I have since heard,
      belongs not to me to discover. Other gentlemen have more
      ample information of this business, in the course it has
      taken, than I can possibly have been able to obtain; for,
      having done my duty whilst there, I left it for others who
      succeeded me to perform theirs, and I have made but little
      further inquiry respecting it. The animated pursuit that
      was made of this object, required, and, I believe,
      received, as firm an opposition. The Southern States were
      on their guard, and warmly opposed it. For my part, I
      thought it my duty to use every effort in Congress for the
      interest of the Southern States. But so far as it depended
      on me, with my official character, it ceased. With many of
      those gentlemen, to whom I always considered it as my
      particular misfortune to be opposed, I am now in habits of
      correspondence and friendship; and I am concerned for the
      necessity which has given birth to this relation.

      "Whether the Delegates of those States spoke the language
      of their constituents; whether it may be considered as the
      permanent interest of such States to depress the growth and
      increasing population of the Western country, are points
      which I cannot pretend to determine. I must observe,
      however, that I always supposed it would, for a variety of
      reasons, prove injurious to every part of the Confederacy.
      These are well understood, and need not be dilated on here.
      If, however, such should be the interest of seven States,
      let gentlemen contemplate the consequences in the operation
      of the Government, as it applies to this subject. I have
      always been of opinion, sir, that the American States, to
      all national objects, had, in every respect, a common
      interest. Few persons would be willing to bind them
      together by a stronger or more indissoluble bond, or give
      the National Government more power than myself. I only wish
      to prevent it from doing harm, either to States or
      individuals; and the rights and interests of both, in a
      variety of instances, in which they are now left
      unprotected, might, in my opinion, be better guarded. If I
      have mistaken any facts, honorable gentlemen will correct
      me. If I omitted any, and it has not been intentional, so I
      shall be happy with their assistance to supply the defect.

      "Mr. Monroe added several other observations, the purport
      of which was, that the interest of the Western country
      would not be as secure under the proposed constitution as
      under the Confederation; because, under the latter system,
      the Mississippi could not be relinquished without the
      consent of nine States, whereas by the former, he said, a
      majority of seven States could yield it. His own opinion
      was, that it would be given up by a majority of the
      Senators present in the Senate, with the President, which
      would put it in the power of less than seven States to
      surrender it. That the Northern States were inclined to
      yield it. That it was their interest to prevent an
      augmentation of the Southern influence and power; and that
      as mankind in general, and States in particular, were
      governed by interest, the Northern States would not fail of
      availing themselves of the opportunity given them by the
      constitution of relinquishing that river, in order to
      depress the Western country, and prevent the Southern
      interest from preponderating.

      "Mr. HENRY[74] then rose and requested that the honorable
      gentleman (Mr. Monroe) would discover the rest of the
      project, and what Spain was to do on her part, as an
      equivalent for the cession of the Mississippi.

      "Mr. MONROE.--Mr. Chairman, I do not thoroughly recollect
      every circumstance relative to this project. But there was
      to be a commercial intercourse between the United States
      and Spain. We were to be allowed to carry our produce to
      the ports of Spain, and the Spaniards to have an equal
      right of trading hither. It was stipulated that there
      should be a reciprocity of commercial intercourse and
      benefits between the subjects of Spain and the citizens of
      the United States. The manufactures of Spain were to be
      freely imported and vended in this country, and our
      manufactures to be carried to Spain, &c., without
      obstruction, and both parties were to have mutual
      privileges in point of commercial intercourse and
      connection. This, sir, is the amount of the project of
      Spain, which was looked upon as advantageous to us. I
      thought myself that it was not. I considered Spain as being
      without manufactures, as the most slow in the progress of
      arts, and the most unwise, with respect to commerce, of all
      nations under the sun, (in which respect I thought Great
      Britain the wisest.) Their gentlemen and nobles look on
      commerce with contempt. No man of character among them will
      undertake it. They make little discrimination with any
      nation. Their character is to shut out all nations, and
      exclude every intercourse with them, and this would be the
      case with respect to us. Nothing is given to us by this
      project, but what is given to all other nations. It is bad
      policy, and unjustifiable on such terms to yield that
      valuable right. Their merchants have great stocks in trade.
      It is not so with our merchants. Our people require
      encouragement. Mariners must be encouraged. On a review of
      these circumstances, I thought the project unwise and
      impolitic."

Haying completed the reading, Mr. R. resumed his remarks. I have, said
he, to ask pardon of the House for detaining them with the reading of so
lengthy a document. That it contains perhaps the only correct historical
detail extant of this truly curious transaction, must constitute my
apology.

I will now ask, Mr. Speaker, who ever have been, and still are, the
unshaken friends of the navigation of the Mississippi, and of the
Western interests of this Union? It is not my wish, sir, on this
occasion, to cast gentlemen opposed to us into the shade--to throw them
into the background. All we ask is an equal share of confidence in our
zeal to assert this great right, until we shall have proved ourselves
unworthy of it. What is there then exhibited from the earliest period of
our history? What fact has transpired which renders us undeserving of
that confidence, or which entitles gentlemen on the other side of the
House exclusively to it? Shall we then silently submit to the intolerant
assumption on their part of all feeling for this important right,
involving the vital interests of our country? Shall we sit down
contented under the imputation of lukewarmness in this cause? or, shall
we tell those gentlemen that under every circumstance, and in all
situations, with closed doors, as well as with open doors, we have been,
are, and ever will be, the unalterable supporters of the free navigation
of the Mississippi?

The sentiments which have been displayed in the course of this
proceeding, present a phenomenon in the history of what are termed
regular Governments. When an Administration have formed the design of
subverting the public liberties--of enriching themselves or their
adherents out of the public purse, or of crushing all opposition beneath
the strong hand of power--war has ever been the favorite ministerial
specific. Hence have we seen men in power too generally inclined to
hostile measures, and hence the opposition have been, as uniformly, the
champions of peace--not choosing to nerve with new vigor (the natural
consequence of war) hands, on whose hearts or heads they were unwilling
to bestow their confidence. But how shall we account for the exception
which is now exhibited to this hitherto received maxim? On the one part
the solution is easy. An Administration under which our country
flourishes beyond all former example--with no sinister views--seeking to
pay off the public encumbrances, to lessen the public burdens, and to
leave to each man the enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor, are,
therefore, desirous of peace, so long as it can be preserved
consistently with the interests and honor of the country. On the other
hand, what do you see? Shall I say an opposition sickening at the sight
of the public prosperity, seeking through war, confusion, and a
consequent derangement of our finances, that aggrandizement which the
public felicity must for ever forbid? No, sir, my respect for this House
and for those gentlemen forbids this declaration, whilst, at the same
time, I am unable to account on any other principle for their conduct.
Mr. R. concluded by saying, that he had forborne these observations
until they were extorted from him. He had hoped that gentlemen would
have let the business take its course, after the decision of yesterday,
and that the House would have gone into committee on the confidential
Message; but gentlemen had insisted on discussing the merits of the
navigation on a preliminary question. The business having taken that
turn, he thought it due to himself and friends to repel the odium which
it was endeavored to attach to them.

Mr. DANA thought it was not necessary on this subject to enter into a
history of political parties in this country. And when the gentleman
from Virginia undertook to give a history, he had no idea that he was
about giving details of secret history. He had supposed he was about
offering a general view of the subject. He did not know that it was to
be stated who were friendly or unfriendly to the rights of our Western
citizens, much less that there was an established hereditary hostility
to them. He had supposed that all the gentlemen on that floor had
expressed the wishes of the people; he had supposed there was but one
opinion; he had heard of no insinuation of difference. The only
difference which he had thought existed was as to the means to be used,
and the time when those means should be carried into effect. But as to
the natural right, and the ultimate enjoyment of the nation to the free
navigation of the Mississippi, he asked what gentleman had charged
another with any doubts on that? And when we all agree in this, whence
the necessity of calling up the animosities of party? May not gentlemen
express their opinions in favor of decided measures, when the voice of
the nation had been so audibly expressed, without such expression being
construed into a censure upon others? When, too, the opinions of other
gentlemen on fundamental points coincided with your own? Is it
necessary, when the whole nation is alive, to be moderate in the
expression of our ideas? If we do not come from that part of the Union
more immediately affected by the late measures at New Orleans, are we
therefore to be indifferent and unconcerned spectators of events? If,
standing here as Representatives of the United States, we are not at
liberty to attend to any thing not confined to the trifling district of
country we may each of us represent, miserable is the ground on which we
stand, and humble indeed our condition! But let me say, even on this
ground, the ship-owners and the merchants on the Atlantic are deeply
interested. Our Western citizens are certainly more deeply interested in
the freedom of the Mississippi; but it goes to the great interests of
navigation generally. They feel it most; but we feel it much.

This is all I deem it necessary, said Mr. D., to observe on the remarks
of the gentleman from Virginia on his historical detail. Sir, this ought
not to be made a party question. With respect to the motion before the
House, my colleague has drawn it in terms the most respectful. Gentlemen
propose to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. To this we object,
because we want the information promptly. But the votes of gentlemen
prevail, and it is referred. Our next step is to refer it immediately,
to avoid delay. To obtain information, full and prompt, is the end of
our endeavors. Why are we told of the inconsistency of our means? The
course we pursue is plain and direct; that which carries us steadily to
our obtaining information; and if the House will not give it to us in
the way we wish, we are for taking it in the best way we can. Let it be
remarked, that, if no obstacles had taken place at New Orleans, the
subject of the cession of Louisiana is referred to in the Message of the
President. Is not the information, we ask, important, in the general
view, of who are to be our neighbors; where, from the dispersed
population of our citizens, the Union is most vulnerable? And in this
light it would have been proper to get the information, even if the
measures at New Orleans had not occurred. It makes no difference whether
those measures are the measures of Spain or of France. The two points
were not necessarily connected, though I admit that the proceedings at
New Orleans have a bearing on the general subject. With regard to the
measures at New Orleans, we have information, and have obtained it. That
information has been referred to a Committee of the Whole. We now ask
information respecting the cession; and having got it, let us refer that
also, and deliberate on the measures proper to be taken. Cannot the
logical talents of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON)
distinguish between information and measures? Will he say that premises
and conclusions are the same thing? This information is that on which we
are to deliberate. I had supposed facts necessary to legislate on. I had
thought there was, to be sure, a connection between one step and another
which follows. But will the gentleman say, that whenever we ask
information, we conclude upon measures?

The yeas and nays were then taken on the call of Mr. GRISWOLD, on going
into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, which was
lost--yeas 38, nays 48, as follows:

      YEAS.--Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude, John Campbell,
      Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T.
      Davis, William Dickson, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard,
      Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, William
      Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin
      Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon,
      Samuel L. Mitchill, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Elias
      Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John
      Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney,
      Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham,
      Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel
      Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
      Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas
      Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard
      Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, Edwin
      Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William
      Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael
      Leib, David Meriwether, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas
      Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jun.,
      John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of
      Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard,
      Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jun., John Stewart, John
      Taliaferro, jun., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram
      Trigg, John Trigg, John P. Van Ness, Joseph B. Varnum,
      Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, that notwithstanding the unfortunate situation they
were placed in by the refusal of the House, he still deemed it his duty
to move other resolutions, which he would read, and move to be referred
to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. G. then moved the following resolutions:

      _Resolved_, That the people of the United States are
      entitled to the free navigation of the river Mississippi.

      _Resolved_, That the navigation of the river Mississippi
      has been obstructed by the regulations recently carried
      into effect at New Orleans.

      _Resolved_, That the right of freely navigating the river
      Mississippi ought never to be abandoned by the United
      States.

      _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire
      whether any, and, if any, what, Legislative measures are
      necessary to secure to the people of the United States the
      free navigation of the river Mississippi.

Mr. DAWSON asked if these resolutions were not necessarily connected
with a subject which the House had determined should be discussed in
private? If, by this arrangement, other gentlemen had been precluded
from offering resolutions, he would ask if it were right in the
gentleman from Connecticut to violate a general injunction laid upon all
the members?

Mr. GRISWOLD.--There is a Message from the President, of the 22d of
December, on this subject that is publicly entered on the journals.[75]
It is on this Message that these resolutions are predicated. I trust I
understand the rules of the House well enough to know that I am not to
bring forward what it has been enjoined shall be secret.

The question was then taken without further debate, on taking up the
above resolutions for consideration, and lost--yeas 32, nays 50.

Mr. RANDOLPH then called for the consideration of the President's
confidential Message, when the galleries were cleared.


FRIDAY, January 7.

_Navigation of the Mississippi._

(SECRET SESSION.)

On a motion made and seconded, the House was cleared of all persons
present, except the members and the Clerk: Whereupon,

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the Messages from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the
twenty-second and thirtieth ultimo, and the documents transmitted
therewith; and, after some time spent therein, Mr. SPEAKER resumed the
Chair, and Mr. VARNUM reported that the committee had again had the said
Messages and documents under consideration, and come to a resolution
thereupon; which he delivered in at the Clerk's table, where the same
was read as follows:

      "_Resolved_, That this House receive with great sensibility
      the information of a disposition in certain officers of the
      Spanish Government, at New Orleans, to obstruct the
      navigation of the river Mississippi, as secured to the
      United States by the most solemn stipulations.

      "That, adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought
      ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United
      States have always professed to be governed; willing, at
      the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the
      unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than
      to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic
      Majesty; and relying, with perfect confidence, on the
      vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the
      issue of such measures as that department of the Government
      shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating
      the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their
      duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable
      determination to maintain the boundaries and the rights of
      navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as
      established by existing treaties."

The House proceeded to consider the said resolution at the Clerk's
table: Whereupon, so much as is contained in the first clause thereof,
being again read, in the words following, to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That this House receive with great sensibility
      the information of a disposition in certain officers of the
      Spanish Government, at New Orleans, to obstruct the
      navigation of the river Mississippi, as secured to the
      United States by the most solemn stipulations."

The question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of
the whole House in their agreement to the same; and resolved in the
affirmative.

The last clause of the said resolution being again read, in the words
following, to wit:

      "That, adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought
      ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United
      States have always professed to be governed; willing, at
      the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the
      unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than
      to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic
      Majesty; and relying, with perfect confidence, on the
      vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the
      issue of such measures as that department of the Government
      shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating
      the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their
      duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable
      determination to maintain the boundaries and the rights of
      navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as
      established by existing treaties:"

A motion was made, and the question being put to amend the said last
clause of the resolution, by striking out therefrom the words following,
to wit:

      "And relying, with perfect confidence, on the vigilance and
      wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the issue of such
      measures as that department of the Government shall have
      pursued for asserting the rights, and vindicating the
      injuries of the United States:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 30, nays 53, as follows:

      YEAS.--Thos. Boude, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John
      Davenport, John Dennis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold,
      William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, Joseph Hemphill,
      Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger,
      Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R.
      Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John
      Rutledge, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton,
      Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, George B. Upham, Killian K.
      Van Rensselaer, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
      Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas
      Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard
      Cutts, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas
      Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray,
      Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Helms,
      William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson,
      Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas
      Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph
      H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith,
      (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard,
      Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John
      Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram
      Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
      Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, to amend the
said last clause of the resolution, by striking out therefrom the word
"vindicating," next before the words "the injuries of the United
States," and inserting the word "redressing," in lieu thereof, it passed
in the negative.

The question was then taken that the House do concur with the Committee
of the whole House in their agreement to the said last clause of the
resolution, and resolved in the affirmative.

A motion was then made and seconded that the House reconsider their
decision on the said last clause of the resolution; and the question
being put thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

A division of the question was then called for: whereupon the first
member of the said last clause of the resolution being again read, in
the words following, to wit:

      "That adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought
      ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United
      States have always professed to be governed; willing, at
      the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the
      unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than
      to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic
      Majesty:"

The said division of the question was objected to, as not being in
order, and the SPEAKER having decided the same was in order, an appeal
was made to the House from the decision of the Chair; and on the
question, "Is the decision of the Chair in order?" it was resolved in
the affirmative.

On the question that the House do agree to the said first member of the
last clause of the resolution, it was unanimously resolved in the
affirmative, by yeas and nays, every member present voting in the
affirmative, to wit:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
      Bailey, Thomas Boude, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William
      Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John
      Condit, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John
      Dawson, John Dennis, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph,
      Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray,
      Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A.
      Hanna, Seth Hastings, Joseph Heister, William Helms, Joseph
      Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, William
      Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, Samuel
      Hunt, George Jackson, Michael Leib, Thomas Lowndes,
      Ebenezer Mattoon, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill,
      Thomas Moore, Lewis R. Morris, Anthony New, Thomas Newton,
      jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater,
      John Randolph, jr., Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John
      Smilie, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, (of New York,)
      Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard
      Stanford, John Stanley, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stratton,
      John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, David
      Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Philip Van
      Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Killian K.
      Van Rensselaer, and Thomas Wynns.

The third member of the said last clause of the resolution being again
read, in the words following, to wit:

      "Holding it to be their duty, at the same time, to express
      their unalterable determination to maintain the boundaries,
      and the rights of navigation and commerce through the river
      Mississippi, as established by existing treaties:"

A motion was made, and the question being put, to amend the same by
striking therefrom the words "existing treaties," and inserting the word
"treaty" in lieu thereof, it passed in the negative.

On the question that the House do agree to the said third member of the
last clause of the resolution, it was unanimously resolved in the
affirmative, by yeas and nays, every member present voting in the
affirmative.

And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the
said resolution, as reported from the Committee of the whole House, it
was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 50, nays 25, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
      Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas
      Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard
      Cutts, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph,
      Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg,
      John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Helms, William Hoge,
      James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib,
      David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony
      New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John
      Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,)
      Josiah Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph
      Stanton, jr., John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R.
      Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

      NAYS.--Thomas Boude, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John
      Dennis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings,
      Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger,
      Samuel Hunt, Thos. Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R.
      Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John
      Rutledge, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton,
      Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Killian K. Van Rensselaer,
      and Lemuel Williams.

_Resolved_, That the injunction of secrecy upon the members of this
House, so far as relates to the resolution last recited, and the
proceedings of the House on the Messages from the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, of the twenty-second and thirtieth ultimo, be taken off.


MONDAY, January 10.

Another member, to wit, JAMES A. BAYARD, from Delaware, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.

A new member, to wit, PETER EARLY, returned to serve in this House, as a
member from the State of Georgia, in the room of John Milledge, who hath
resigned, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Monuments to Generals, and to the Captors of Andre._

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed
the bill entitled "An act to carry into effect several resolutions of
Congress, for erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals
Wooster, Herkimer, Davidson, and Scriven," to which they desire the
concurrence of this House.

The said bill was read twice and committed to the committee appointed
the fourth instant, to prepare and bring in a bill for erecting a
monument to the memory of General Herkimer, pursuant to a resolution of
Congress, passed the fourth day of October, one thousand seven hundred
and seventy-seven.

Sundry motions being made and seconded, that the House do come to the
following resolutions respectively, to wit:

      _Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of
      Major General Joseph Warren, who was slain on Bunker's Hill
      on the seventeenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred
      and seventy-five; and that the sum of ---- be appropriated
      therefor.

      _Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of
      General Hugh Mercer, who was slain at Princeton, on the
      third day of January, one thousand seven hundred and
      seventy-seven; and that the sum of ---- dollars be
      appropriated for that purpose.

      _Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of
      General Francis Nash, who was slain at the battle of
      Germantown; and that the sum of ---- dollars be
      appropriated for that purpose.

      _Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of
      General Richard Butler, who was killed gallantly fighting
      in an action with the Indians, on the fourth day of
      November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one; and
      that ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose.

      _Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of
      General Nathaniel Woodhull, who commanded the militia on
      Long Island, in the year one thousand seven hundred and
      seventy-six, and was then taken prisoner and most cruelly
      put to death by the enemy; and that ---- dollars be
      appropriated for that purpose.

      _Resolved_, That a monument be erected to commemorate the
      virtuous and patriotic conduct of John Paulding, David
      Williams, and Isaac Van Wert, who, on the twenty-third day
      of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty,
      intercepted Major John Andre, Adjutant General of the
      British Army, returning from the American lines in the
      character of a spy; and that the sum of ---- dollars be
      appropriated for that purpose.

_Ordered_, That the said motions, severally, be referred to the
committee to whom was this day committed the bill sent from the Senate,
entitled "An act to carry into effect several resolutions of Congress
for erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals Wooster,
Herkimer, Davidson and Scriven."

_National University._

Mr. VAN NESS presented a representation from Samuel Blodget, on the
subject of a National University, as follows:

      "The memorial of Samuel Blodget, late Supervisor of the
      City of Washington, represents that, owing his appointment
      chiefly to his zeal in forming several probationary plans
      for a National University, he conceived it an indispensable
      duty, after the death of WASHINGTON, to follow the
      commanding advice and noble example of the common Father of
      his Country, so irresistibly portrayed in his Farewell
      Address, and in the clause of his will annexed to his
      liberal donation therefor. In thus calling, most
      respectfully, the attention of your honorable body to this
      part of the will of WASHINGTON, he fulfils a promise made
      in behalf of more than one thousand subscribers to the same
      object, whose respectable names accompany this memorial,
      with a request that a committee may be appointed to
      consider what portion of the public lots and lands in the
      Western Territory of the United States, shall be
      appropriated by Congress to this important institution, in
      addition to the contents of either of the sites already
      contemplated therefor within the City of Washington, by
      WASHINGTON himself, and by the Commissioners thereof. And
      further to consider the expediency (should it comport with
      the monumental plan to be adopted) of erecting the statue
      of 1783, or in lieu thereof an appropriate and
      characteristic equestrian statue of the original founder of
      the National University, as a beautiful centre-piece for
      the entire plan, to be surrounded by halls and colleges as
      they may be built in succession, by the fund to which the
      whole people of America are now so liberally and so
      honorably contributing by voluntary subscriptions from
      Maine to Georgia inclusive; thus virtually following the
      ancient custom of the original Americans, who, men, women,
      and children, carried a stone to the monumental pile of a
      beloved chief."

The memorial was accompanied by a plan of the Equestrian Statue of
Washington, surrounded by halls and colleges regularly arranged, the
whole to be styled the Monument to Washington. Referred to a select
committee--ayes 42, nays 27.

The following members constitute the committee: Mr. VAN NESS, Mr.
TALIAFERRO, Mr. HILL, Mr. ELMENDORPH, and Mr. CUTLER.


TUESDAY, January 11.

The House proceeded to consider the amendment proposed by the Senate to
the bill entitled "An act for the relief of Charles Hyde;" Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That this House do agree to the said amendment.

_Cession of Louisiana to France._

Mr. GRISWOLD moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union, intending, should he succeed, to call
up his resolution presented on the 5th instant, viz:

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this
      House, copies of such official documents as have been
      received by this Government, announcing the cession of
      Louisiana to France, together with a report, explaining the
      stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which
      that province is to be delivered up, unless such documents
      and reports will, in the opinion of the President, divulge
      to the House particular transactions not proper at this
      time to be communicated."

I recollect, said Mr. G., when I proposed on a former day that the House
should go into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering
this resolution, the principal arguments in opposition were drawn from
its supposed connection with a subject which had been referred to a
secret committee, and, therefore improper for previous or public
discussion. Those arguments have now lost their weight. The House have
decided on those confidential subjects, and their resolution was
published, and I believe it will appear that I was not incorrect in my
opinion, that this resolution has no concern with any confidential
communications. When before under consideration, the inquiry
contemplated was considered important. The information requested must be
in possession of the Executive; it cannot be supposed that such
documents as would be useful to the House, do not exist in the Executive
cabinet. We cannot legislate with a proper understanding, unless we are
informed of all the circumstances, conditions, and stipulations, under
which that territory is ceded to France. I will not believe that the
Executive has neglected to demand such explanations as the honor and
interest of the United States require. It is this official information
which we want. As we are unembarrassed by other subjects, either of a
public or secret nature, I hope the House will now come to a decision; I
shall call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DAWSON moved a postponement of the resolution to a future day.

Mr. MOTT said he was opposed to the resolution, but was for going into
Committee of the Whole, and deciding upon it, rather than to be troubled
with it from day to day.

Mr. DANA.--I consider the refusal to go into a Committee of the Whole on
the state of the Union as a negative upon the resolution. We have been
told before by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that it does
not amount to a refusal of the resolution. True, it may not be so harsh
a mode of putting it aside, but the effect is virtually the same. Will
it be made a question whether it is proper to ask for information? The
President has recommended the subject to our attention in his message.
It is not only proper, but of course becomes our duty, to deliberate,
and to request such information from the President, as will assist and
enlighten us in our proceedings. It is his constitutional province to do
this, and it would be a reflection on him to suppose that he would
withhold any information from the House, on a subject which he had
thought so important, as to form part of an official message. It could
not have been inserted merely for the sake of rounding off a period. No,
sir, the President has undoubtedly sufficient reasons for mentioning
this, as a subject worthy of our deliberations; he is designated by the
constitution as the proper person from whom information on subjects of
this nature is to be derived; he is supposed to combine the whole; it is
not proper to receive it but from an official source. The general
subject is mentioned in the following terms:

      "The cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to
      France, which took place in the course of the late war,
      will, if carried into effect, make a change in the aspect
      of our foreign relations, which will doubtless have just
      weight in any deliberations connected with that subject."

Are we to suppose the Executive has not been vigilant in ascertaining
the circumstances attending this event? No. Are we to suppose he is
unwilling to inform us what they are? No. He must be supposed willing to
give the information. Therefore, why should gentlemen prevent us from
obtaining that intelligence, which is presumed to exist, and which the
Executive must be willing to give?

Mr. RANDOLPH was averse to going into a Committee of the whole House on
the state of the Union, if it were understood that the resolution of the
gentleman from Connecticut was to be taken up. It was not very material
to him in what way the House signified their dissent to the measure;
but, preferring that which was least circuitous, he hoped they would
refuse to take it up in committee. Much pains having been taken to
impress a belief that the President had communicated to the House a fact
of which he possessed no official information, Mr. R. begged the House
to recollect that the tortured ingenuity of gentlemen had been unable
fairly to infer the fact from the Executive communications; nor could
it be implied from a refusal to concur in the proposed resolution. His
opposition to it grew out of the resolution itself. It conveys the
suspicion that Spain has ceded Louisiana to France indefinitely, thereby
giving to France some color of claim to the countries formerly comprised
under that appellation; or that she has made the cession by limits
incompatible with her engagements to us; and that in either case our
right to the navigation of the Mississippi may have been impaired. For,
if you suppose in this transfer of her property that Spain has paid due
regard to her stipulations with us, the resolution ceases to have an
object. Now, sir, wherefore cast this imputation on Spain?--especially
at this crisis, when, as I am informed from a respectable source, one of
the first characters in the Union is recently nominated Minister to that
Court, for the purpose of adjusting all differences on this subject?

I should have supposed another reason would have deterred the gentleman
from persisting in this call. That gentleman and his friends had
recorded on the journals of this House their solemn determination,
however sensibly they might feel the injuries inflicted on the rights
and interests of these States, to refuse all co-operation in the support
of those rights and interests so long as the direction of the Government
should be retained by those who now possess it. For, after having
expressed their disapprobation of that clause in a resolution lately
adopted by the House to affect our rights of limits and of navigation
through the Mississippi, objecting to no other part of it, they had,
nevertheless, refused to give their assent to it because of this
objectionable passage. There was a time, sir, when such conduct would
have been denounced by a portion of this House as the essence of
Jacobinism and disorganization. Mr. R. concluded by saying that he
thought it unwise at this time, in the very cradle of the negotiation,
to throw out insinuations which would have a tendency to irritate or
disgust the Spanish Court.

Mr. GRISWOLD.--I did not expect that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH) would, in the face of the journal now on the table, in
contradiction to the knowledge of every gentleman in this House, have
made the declaration we have just heard. Have we given our vote that we
would not defend the free navigation of the Mississippi? Have we not
been ready to unite in adopting those measures which the infraction of
treaties and our violated rights demand? I appeal to our journals. What
has been done, there appears, and will contradict the assertions of that
gentleman. When the resolution was under consideration in the secret
committee, which the gentleman (Mr. RANDOLPH) emphatically called HIS
OFFSPRING, there were two votes taken on certain parts or members of it,
previous to the main question. A motion was made to strike out the
following clause:

      "And relying with perfect confidence on the vigilance and
      wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the issue of such
      measures as that department of the Government shall have
      pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating the
      injuries of the United States."

I voted against this part of the resolution for two reasons: first,
because I could not express a confidence which I did not feel; and
secondly, because I was not satisfied with a resolution to do nothing. I
thought we ought to do something; that it was not proper for the
Legislature to sit as idle spectators of an important political
transaction, which required legislative interference. I thought we ought
to prepare for the worst. These were the reasons, Mr. Speaker, which
influenced my conduct upon the motion for striking out. But how did we
vote on the motion for agreeing to the following clause?

      "Holding it to be their duty at the same time to express
      their unalterable determination to maintain the boundaries,
      and the rights of navigation and commerce, through the
      river Mississippi, as established by existing treaties."

Did we refuse our assent? Did we object to a syllable contained in this
part of the resolution? No, sir, the vote was unanimous. Every member of
the House stands pledged to support the sentiments therein expressed. On
this point there was no difference of opinion. I appeal to your
journals, sir, and to the recollection of every gentleman who was on
that secret committee, whether I am not correct. It is true that there
was a difference of opinion in the secret committee upon the other part
of the resolution; on one side of the House it appeared proper to
express great confidence in the present Executive, and, leaving every
thing to that department, to do nothing ourselves; whilst on the other
side, as we did not feel that confidence, we could not express it, and
believing the occasion demanded legislative interference, we thought it
necessary to prepare for the worst. How, then, can we be charged by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) with having recorded our
determination not to protect the rights and interests of these States,
when our votes, appearing on your journal, not only prove our
unalterable determination to defend those rights, but likewise prove
that we were willing to leave the vindicating of those rights entirely
to the Executive, and were earnestly desirous of adding thereto all the
aid which the Legislature could contribute, and that we have been
prevented from pursuing this course by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr.
RANDOLPH,) and his friends? I must be permitted again to express my
astonishment that the gentleman can with any face make these charges,
and again to appeal to your journal, and the recollection of every
gentleman, for a contradiction of these unmerited aspersions.

When the main question was taken we refused our assent. Not because we
were unwilling to adopt such measures as circumstances might require;
but because we could not sanction those expressions of unbounded
confidence in the Executive, and that determination to do nothing which
the resolution contained.

As another argument against this resolution, we are told it is
calculated to irritate and impede a negotiation, which the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has informed us is about to commence, and,
I must say, about to commence at a very late period; after an expiration
of one year since the cession of that territory to France. Let us recur
to the resolution:

      "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
      requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this
      House copies of such official documents as have been
      received by this Government, announcing the cession of
      Louisiana to France, together with a report explaining the
      stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which
      that province is to be delivered up; unless such documents
      and reports will, in the opinion of the President, divulge
      to the House particular transactions, not proper at this
      time to be communicated."

Is this the language of irritation? Is there an offensive sentence
either to the Court of Spain or the Republic of France? Not one. So far
from impeding negotiation, it might lead to measures which would
accelerate the agency, and ensure terms more advantageous. To be ready
for any and every event, would evince on our part a disposition to
demand, and the power to enforce reparation if refused. Inactivity and
silence in the Legislative Department will indeed retard successful
negotiation, by depriving a Minister of powerful and unanswerable
arguments.

Mr. S. SMITH said, it would be recollected, that on the first day the
resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut was offered, it struck him
as improper, and that it was at his instance it had been ordered to lie
on the table. The more he had considered the nature of that resolution,
the more averse to it had he become. So far from his original dislike to
it having been removed by the arguments advanced, it had been confirmed,
and particularly by what had fallen from the gentleman from Virginia.
The gentleman from Connecticut does not perceive, or is unwilling to
acknowledge, that there is any thing in his resolution that implies
unfairness on the part of Spain, or that derogates from the honor of her
character; but let him read the resolution. Mr. S. then read as follows:

      "That the President of the United States be requested to
      direct the proper officer to lay before this House copies
      of such official documents as have been received by this
      Government, announcing the cession of Louisiana to France,
      together with a report explaining the stipulations,
      circumstances, and conditions under which the province is
      to be delivered up."

Does not the gentleman who drew this resolution seem to believe, from
the express words of it, that the conduct of Spain has been unfair, and
that she may have adopted measures derogatory to her character and
honor? Shall we send a Minister hampered by such a resolution?

Let the gentleman recollect the conduct of this House on a similar
occasion. When an order of the British Court issued to seize all
American vessels, wherever found, certain spirited resolutions were
proposed in that House to show the dissatisfaction of the Government at
this unjust measure, and its disposition, if necessary, to resist it.
The gentleman will recollect, that at that crisis, and pending those
very resolutions, a Minister was appointed. Did not the gentleman's
friends immediately state the impropriety of passing those resolutions?
The fact was, that gentlemen on both sides felt the force of the
suggestion, and the resolutions were withdrawn. Mr. S. thought it wise,
prudent, and proper, to pursue on this occasion the same course. He
could conceive of no good end which could be answered by the resolution.
Is the gentleman really in earnest in his inquiries at this time? and if
the effect of his resolution should be to show that the stipulations are
injurious to our rights, would he know how to act? He would be for
acting spiritedly, no doubt; and yet, at this very moment, when he
professed such a declaration, he declares to the world, that he has no
confidence in the Executive, who is now pursuing the proper measures! I
cannot, therefore, conceive that the gentleman is in earnest, after the
vote which he and his friends have given of a want of confidence in the
Executive. I cannot consider their conduct as intended to promote the
real interests of their country; but as calculated to bring the country
into a situation from which it cannot withdraw, without pursuing
measures attended with expense and blood.

Mr. RANDOLPH.--I trust neither this House, nor the American people, can
be deceived as to this transaction. What I have stated the journals
confirm, and I should call for the reading of them, if I were not
informed by the Clerk that they were at the printer's. A resolution
passed this House, expressing its disposition to assert the rights of
the United States, in relation to their established limits, and to the
navigation of the Mississippi. That resolution contained an expression
of confidence in the Executive. Gentlemen moved to strike it out and
failed. In every other part they concurred, separately and distinctly.
But to the whole they gave their negative. What is the inference? That
they will not assert our rights because they have no confidence in the
Executive. Liken this to a bill: A clause is moved to be stricken out;
it is retained. Those who object to that clause vote against the final
passage of the bill. It is nevertheless carried; it becomes law. Are not
those who voted against it fairly to be considered as enemies to the
law? So have I a right to enumerate that gentleman and his friends,
opponents to the measure which I submitted to the House; and yet, sir,
although I stated every fact mentioned by the gentleman himself, (Mr.
GRISWOLD,) except the final vote, which he took care to keep out of
sight; although I mentioned expressly their concurrence in every other
part of the resolution, it is asked with what face I can make such a
statement in the teeth of your journals? Sir, let me tell that
gentleman, not with the face of a prevaricator, but with the face of a
man of honor and a gentleman; not with the face of one using terms
intended to convey more than meets the ear, with a view of explaining
them away when convenient; not with a design of simulating what I do not
believe, or of dissembling my real purpose. The House will recollect,
sir, that in the committee, the objection of the gentleman from
Connecticut was confined solely to the expression of confidence in the
Executive, there was then no reason to believe that there was any other.
After protesting against this expression, and suffering it even to
prevent his concurrence in any measures for the common good, he comes
forward with another resolution, whether to benefit that cause which he
has refused to espouse, or to diminish that confidence which appears so
much to have disturbed him, I leave the House to determine. But
Louisiana is ceded to France. It is so. Of this fact we have official
information. But let it be remembered that it is yet in the hands of
Spain. The injury which we have received is from officers of that Crown.
The reparation is to be demanded from the same quarter. Now what has the
information desired by gentlemen to do with any such negotiation? When
France shall have taken possession of this province; when she shall have
made pretensions inconsistent with our honor, or with our rights in that
quarter, then will it be time enough to take up this subject. This is a
transaction, which, if it ever does take place, must pass under the
immediate cognizance and control of this House. Let gentlemen recollect
that the treaty of cession is of an old date, and Louisiana is,
notwithstanding, still in the possession of Spain. Shall we then suggest
to France our expectation that she will set up a claim inconsistent with
our rights; that she may have received a colorable pretence for
violating them? Shall we thereby invite her aggressions? In whatever
hands this country may be eventually placed, or by whomsoever our rights
may be invaded, I doubt not a disposition will always be found to defend
them. But it is with the actual possessors that we must negotiate; it is
from them we must demand redress, and not from any nation who may
possess a reversionary right to the province of Louisiana.

Mr. BACON said that there was one question before the House, and they
were debating upon another, in an animated manner and on an extensive
scale, before they come to it. It would be recollected, he hoped, that
this question was not then before the House. To what point, therefore,
could these discussions lead? He was for going into a Committee of the
Whole, and meeting the resolution face to face.

Mr. DANA said that the observations of the gentleman from Massachusetts
would be correct, were it not for the objections made to the resolution.
That question is, therefore, fairly before the House; and the real point
is, whether the House will, or will not, adopt the resolution requesting
information. To adopting this resolution, one objection is urged by the
gentleman from Virginia, and enforced by the gentleman from Maryland.
This resolution, say they, may irritate the Court of Spain, and this
will be improper. One gentleman has said that the language of propriety
is uniform and consistent. Let gentlemen look then at the resolution
long since offered by the gentleman from Virginia, requesting papers in
relation to a violation of compact on the part of Spain in the late
proceedings at New Orleans. Let me ask, is there any thing in this
calculated to gratify the courtly delicacy of a Castilian? Here Spain is
explicitly charged with a violation of her engagement with us. Look at
the resolution that took its birth in secret committee, and which might
be termed the offspring of the intellectual energies of the gentleman
from Virginia. It is willing to ascribe this breach of compact to the
unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than to a want of
good faith on the part of His Catholic Majesty. If this were not the
style of direct complaint, it was, at least, harsh, and in no wise
courtly. Look now at the resolution proposed by my colleague. Compare
them, and if there is not a revolution in the force of language as well
as in other things, say if the language of my colleague's resolution is
not that of civility, moderation, and even flattery, compared with the
language of the other two?

[Mr. DANA having read Mr. GRISWOLD'S resolution proceeded.]

What is there here that implicates the character of Spain? If there is
any fault in mentioning the cession, if that is calculated to irritate
Spain, the fault lies with the President; for he first mentioned it.
This argument, then, must be abandoned. There is nothing in this
resolution that can impede negotiations; it is not my intention that
this House should take any measures to impede, but that we should take
measures to give additional force to negotiation. If I understand what
will give most efficacy to Executive negotiations, it is when the world
are assured that this House will support the President in all proper and
necessary measures for vindicating our rights. But, say the gentlemen,
is it possible that we can be for vindicating the rights of the citizens
when we have withdrawn our confidence from the Executive? It is true we
could not agree with gentlemen in their terms when they avowed "a
perfect confidence in the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive." The
gentleman from Virginia represented this as the theory of the
Government. We could not agree with him. We voted for striking this out.
It is unnecessary to mention our motives for this in detail. This might
be to imitate. What! "relying with perfect confidence in the
Executive"--is this the language of the constitution, as it respects any
man? The resolution does not limit the confidence reposed to any degree,
but ascribes a perfection of wisdom and vigor, which ought not to be
reposed in any being subject to the ordinary frailties of human nature.
Besides, there is an expression of confidence resulting from the
constitutional powers of the Executive, which may be correct. But it
will be recollected that the powers of the Executive are not competent
to ulterior measures. He has only the power of negotiation; he has no
other. Though he may prevent an aggression by employing force, he cannot
enforce compensation for injuries received. It was, therefore, improper
to agree to a resolution that pledged ourselves to abstain from doing
any thing.

The allusion to the case with Great Britain was not correct. Will it be
said that less success attended the measures of our negotiation then,
because the House manifested a disposition to adopt spirited measures?
Or, that there were in that case no measures adopted? Measures were
adopted. But here, not a single measure had been.

Mr. RANDOLPH said it was extremely painful to him to be obliged so often
to explain what appeared to him almost self-evident. The journals have
been quoted, sir, to show that I have cast an imputation on the Spanish
Court more injurious than that contained in the resolution of the
gentleman from Connecticut. I am perfectly willing that the decision of
the question before us should depend upon that fact. The resolution,
sir, which I had the honor to submit to you, spoke of a fact notorious
to the whole world, of a breach of compact, of a violation of treaty, on
the part of Spain, which could be neither denied nor justified. It
contained an inquiry into this circumstance, and, information having
been received respecting it, was followed by a declaration of our
willingness to ascribe it to the unauthorized misconduct of their agents
rather than to the Court of Spain. The resolution of the gentleman from
Connecticut implies a fact highly dishonorable to the Spanish
nation--that the Government, and not subordinate, unauthorized persons,
has secretly entered into stipulations repugnant to its engagements with
us. Put the case between two individuals; suppose a gentleman of this
House to receive an injury from either of the gentlemen from
Connecticut. In an open and manly manner he speaks of this injury, and
in undignified terms of resentment. He inquires into it; having found
that it was the act of a subordinate agent, and, no proof being
exhibited that it was at the instigation of the principal, he frankly
says: There is a violation on your part of your engagements with me, but
I am willing to ascribe it to the unauthorized misconduct of your agent.
On the contrary, suppose him to insinuate strongly that his opponent has
covertly taken steps to injure him by treacherously entering into
engagements incompatible with those previously made with him. Sir, that
honor which would feel itself wounded by the first of these proceedings,
while it was insensible to the other, is very little allied to the
Castilian.

But, sir, it seems that this unfortunate resolution betrays so entire an
ignorance of the distribution of the powers of our Government as to
clothe the Executive with an authority not only not devolved upon it by
the constitution, but which is the peculiar province of this and the
other branch of the Legislature. The gentleman (Mr. DANA) denies the
power of the Executive to redress injuries received from foreign
nations. The resolution, however, speaks only of a disposition to
redress those injuries. But let us examine into the fact. Have I,
indeed, so far mistaken, and, contrary to my own avowed principles, am
so disposed to augment the Executive powers at the expense of the other
departments of the Government? Suppose, on the representations of the
Executive to the Court of Spain, that Court, which is more than
probable, should restore the rights of navigation and deposit, disavow
the conduct of their officers in violating those rights, and moreover,
punish them for it? Would any person deny that, through the agency of
the Executive, constitutionally exercised, the injury was redressed?
There were other criticisms of the gentleman which I well remember, and
to which he seems willing to call the recollection of the House. They
were chiefly of a verbal nature. The gentleman objected to the
expression "vindicating the injuries," which he contended implied the
justifying, and not the redressing, of them. I could only reply, that I
had been in the habit of hearing that word used in the sense in which I
applied it as well as in that contended for by the gentleman. That the
meaning of terms in our copious and flexible language should not be
settled by provincial acceptation; and that by the only authority then
accessible to us (knowing the disposition of the gentleman to bow to
authority) it was decided that the word "vindicate" extended as well to
the avenging of an injury as to the assertion of a right. I am, however,
willing to confess that I have never attended to the technical structure
of language with a precision so minute as that of the gentleman from
Connecticut; and if the House are again to go to school to become
acquainted with it, if again we are to be subjected to the lash of the
pedagogue, no man shall have my vote for that high office so soon as the
gentleman from Connecticut.

When the resolution which I submitted to you was under consideration, I
did defend the expression contained in it, of confidence in the
Executive, on the theory of our Government. I am still ready to defend
it on the same principle. By the Constitution of the United States, the
Executive is the representative of the United States to foreign nations.
It is furnished with organs by which to receive their propositions, and
to communicate our own. The constitution, therefore, presumes that to
this department may be entirely confided our negotiations with foreign
States. To this House is given the sole power to originate money bills,
and the constitution supposes that a perfect reliance may be had upon it
for executing this all-important trust. On the Senate, in like manner,
is devolved the right of trying impeachments, and perfect confidence is
placed in the wisdom and justice of their decision. The same confidence
is reposed in the Executive with respect to exterior relations. Without
adverting, therefore, to the character of the individual, we had the
same right to presume that the constituted authority would take the
proper steps in relation to his department, that he has to presume that
we will raise the necessary revenue and pass the proper laws. Until,
then, it could be shown that some specific act of the Executive had
rendered that department unworthy of our confidence, we might
consistently express it: and, even if proof of such misconduct could be
established, it would not alter the tenor of the constitution, however
the individual might be affected by it. For your constitution, sir, is
not of that precarious nature which depends on the fluctuating
characters of particular men. Mr. R. concluded by declaring his
reluctance, then increased by indisposition, to be so frequently called
upon the floor, but he felt himself in honor bound to defend a motion
made by himself, and which had called forth such repeated animadversions
from the other side of the House.

Mr. GODDARD.--The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has complained
so much of the objections to which his _secret_ resolution was exposed,
that I feel myself called upon to sustain a part of that complaint which
he has seen fit to place to the account of my colleague. The motion,
sir, to strike out the word "vindicating," which gave the gentleman the
trouble of producing his pocket dictionary, came from me. He attempted
to show, by the authority of his dictionary, that the word is sometimes
used to signify _revenge_. Admitting it, I asked then, and I ask now,
with what propriety it could be used, even in that sense, in the
resolution referred to? We were then speaking of measures which had
before that time been taken by the President, regarding the subject to
which the resolution referred. Were we to suppose that the President had
already taken measures to _revenge_ the injuries of the United States? I
had heard of no such intimation. Besides, has he the power to do so, in
the manner then suggested by the gentleman from Virginia by taking
possession of New Orleans? I believe not, without the concurrence of
Congress. It was therefore absurd, in the highest degree, to use the
expression in that resolution; and we had more than one reason for
striking out that part of the resolution which contained it.

But this, as well as every other word and letter of this favorite
resolution, was pertinaciously adhered to. The gentleman who framed the
resolution seemed determined to compel us to eulogize the President--to
extort from us a little praise of _the man_--or reduce us to the
necessity of voting against the principle of the resolution, which
asserted our right to the free navigation of the Mississippi. This part
of the resolution could have been introduced for no other purpose. It
also called upon us to pledge ourselves to wait the issue of such
measures as the President might have taken, without any knowledge of the
nature of those measures, if any had been taken. And this, the gentleman
(Mr. RANDOLPH) now tells us, we might well enough have done, on the
ground of the _theory of our Government_. I did not know, sir, that it
belonged to the theory of Government to eulogize the President on all
occasions, or express a confidence we do not feel. Nor does it make a
part of the theory of our Government, that the President, without the
concurrence of Congress, should avenge the injuries of the country. But,
sir, we determined not to express a confidence we did not feel, or vote
against the principle of a resolution which was agreeable to us; and the
rules of the House, notwithstanding all the efforts to the contrary,
protected us in carrying that determination into effect. We recorded our
votes in favor of such parts of the resolution as we liked, and against
that which we deemed exceptionable; and the final vote which was given
upon the whole resolution was sufficiently explained by those upon its
different parts. But, sir, because we did not vote that we had "perfect
confidence" in the Executive, are we now to be told that we are not
entitled to the information called for by the resolution on your table?
Are those who do not express entire approbation of all the measures of
the Administration to be refused all information respecting the most
important interests of the country?

Another objection is raised to agreeing to this resolution. Gentlemen
say it will offend foreign nations. What does the resolution call for?
It calls for information of a _fact_ which we are told in the
President's Message exists. Louisiana, says the President, has been
ceded by Spain to France. We ask for such documents as he may possess in
evidence of that fact. We wish to know the terms and conditions upon
which that province is to be delivered up. When this is asked, by the
resolution on your table, the right is at the same time reserved to the
President to withhold such parts of it (if any such there be) as, _in
his opinion_, ought not to be communicated. And the passage of this
resolution is to offend France or Spain! For fear of _offending_ foreign
nations we are not to ask or know what is our relative situation with
such nations? If, sir, we hold this language, we may indeed avoid the
_anger_ of foreign nations, but we shall merit their _contempt_. But
when, in answer to the suggestion that we may offend Spain, the
gentleman from Virginia is reminded of his resolution, which charges
Spain directly with a violation of treaty, he replies that this language
is palliated by our saying that we are "willing to ascribe this
violation to the unauthorized conduct of certain individuals rather than
to the want of good faith on the part of His Catholic Majesty." But, in
making out this apology, the gentleman has blended two resolutions
together. The one to which my colleague referred passed early in the
session. In that, Spain was charged directly with a violation of treaty.
Nothing was then said about unauthorized conduct of individuals. This
reluctance at charging Spain with this violation of treaty was not
expressed until a long time after, and is found in the resolution which
passed in secret. Indeed, this, as well as all the objections which have
been offered to the passage of the resolution on your table, appear to
me equally fallacious.

Mr. HUGER said, that having, on a former occasion, had an opportunity of
delivering his sentiments in favor of the present resolution,
"requesting the Executive to direct the proper officer to lay before the
House such official documents, as were in possession of the Government,
relative to the cession of Louisiana to France," he felt no disposition
to enter at this time into a further discussion of the merits of that
resolution, nor should he have again troubled the House on the subject,
but for the assertion repeated more than once by the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that those gentlemen who thought and voted
with himself in the secret committee, had recorded, on the journals of
the House, their solemn determination (however sensibly they might feel
the injuries inflicted on the rights and interests of these States) to
refuse all co-operation in support of those rights and interests so long
as the direction of the Government should remain in the hands of the
present Chief Magistrate. This imputation had already, it was true, been
very properly repelled by his friend from Connecticut, and it had been
triumphantly shown from the journals themselves, with how little justice
the insinuation had been made against those who agreed and voted with
him on the different parts of the resolution lately adopted in the
secret committee. The gentleman from Virginia had, nevertheless, thought
proper again to make the assertion; Mr. H. must, therefore, beg leave
again to meet it, and to declare that it was neither authorized by a
fair construction of the different votes given on the occasion by yeas
and nays, nor to be inferred from any thing which had fallen in debate
either from himself or any of his political friends. The very contrary,
continued Mr. H., is in truth the fact; and had the resolution in
question been debated with open doors, it would have been very evident
to every one, that the utmost pains had been taken by the other side of
the House to place us in this very predicament, and by availing
themselves of a point of order, to oblige us by our votes, not only to
declare an implicit and entire confidence in the present Chief
Magistrate, but to tie up our hands and bind ourselves not to take a
single step in this important business until the Executive was
graciously pleased to authorize us to do so. If the doors had been
allowed, I say, to remain open during the debate, it would have been
evident to every one how much pains were taken to oblige us to commit
ourselves on these two points, or to submit to be presented to the world
as unwilling to co-operate in any way in the support of the just rights
of the nation, and be deprived of an opportunity of showing, as we were
anxious to do, our approbation of, and concurrence in, other parts of
the resolution; the last sentence in particular, which holds forth our
unalterable determination to maintain, in every event, the boundaries
and right of commerce and navigation through the Mississippi, as
established by existing treaties. Fortunately, however, the point of
order was determined in our favor, and we have had an opportunity to
show, and did actually show, by our votes, in the most unequivocal
manner, that we were, as well as our political opponents, decidedly in
favor of every other part of the resolution, save only that which called
on us so unnecessarily to declare ourselves the blind and passive tools
of the Executive. Nay, more, he recollected to have declared himself,
again and again, in the course of the debate, that, although he was not
willing at the present moment unnecessarily to express an entire and
implicit confidence in the political infallibility of the Executive, yet
he certainly had not the smallest hesitation in saying, that he was as
ready as any gentleman on the other side, to devote his life and
fortune, even under the auspices of the present Chief Magistrate, to the
defence of our common country against any and every foreign aggression
whatever. He was not, it was true, one of the warm and enthusiastic
devotees of the present Administration, and he must honestly acknowledge
that he should greatly prefer seeing the reins of Government, at this
critical juncture, in the hands of a WASHINGTON! He, nevertheless,
recollected that the present Chief Magistrate was placed at the head of
affairs by the constitutional voice of the majority of the American
people. He acquiesced, therefore, in their decision, and hoped he might
be permitted to avail himself of the advantage of having the doors now
open, to repeat again, in the most unequivocal language, that he was as
ready as any of the most devoted friends of the Administration, to risk
his life and his all, (even under its auspices,) in asserting the rights
and vindicating the injuries of the United States.

He was the more anxious to make a public and open avowal of his
sentiments on this subject, because, although it might suit the party
purposes for the moment to hold up one side of the House, as so
forgetful of their duty, and so hurried away by their political zeal, as
to pledge themselves in the face of the world, to give up the most
important rights of the nation without a struggle, rather than
co-operate with those now at the head of affairs in support of them, yet
he thought it all-important that foreign nations at least should be
convinced the fact was not so; and that whatever difference of opinion
may exist amongst us with respect to our local politics, when called
upon to meet and repel the encroachments of any foreign power, we would
have but one sentiment on the subject. To bring about, indeed, a
unanimous vote and present to the American people the agreeable and
consoling spectacle of the National Legislature acting with one mind and
with mutual confidence in each other on this great national question,
big with such important consequences, had been his sincere wish, as well
as that, he was confident, of every member on his side of the House.
They had, consequently, left no stone unturned to effect the desirable
end: they had called upon and conjured the majority to waive for the
moment all party questions; to meet them on such fair and honorable
grounds as might enable them to act with perfect unanimity in support of
such measures, as it might be found expedient to adopt. Nor could
gentlemen have forgotten the eloquent and conciliating speech of the
member from Connecticut, and the ardent desire he had evinced, in common
with all his friends, to bury the hatchet and lay aside every other
consideration but the public good. It was scarcely necessary, however,
to remind the House of the manner in which these proffers of
conciliation and the anxiety on our part to obtain a unanimous vote on
this important occasion were received. It is in the memory of every one,
that they were treated with the most sovereign contempt, hooted and
spurned at, and the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) in
particular, went so far as to declare, that he neither wanted nor wished
any thing like unanimity to appear in support of the measures which
might be adopted; nay, that unanimity, however attainable, was not
desirable. Mr. H. said he would make no comment on these sentiments and
this conduct on the part of the majority; and as he did not rise for the
purpose of entering into a further discussion of the main question, he
should no longer encroach on the time or patience of the House, but
leave them and the world to determine whether he or his political
friends had, by their votes or conduct, in the course of the transaction
alluded to, afforded any just ground for the imputation of the gentleman
from Virginia, whatever plausibility he had ingeniously endeavored to
give it.

The question was then taken, on the requisition of Mr. GRISWOLD, by yeas
and nays, and carried in the negative--yeas 38, nays 52, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Archer, John Bacon, James A. Bayard, Phanuel
      Bishop, John Campbell, Thomas Claiborne, Manasseh Cutler,
      Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster,
      Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove,
      Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill,
      Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer
      Matoon, Lewis R. Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater,
      Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John C. Smith, John Stanley,
      John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas
      Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Joseph B. Varnum, Killian K.
      Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry
      Woods.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent,
      Robert Brown, William Butler, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
      John Condit, Richard Cutts, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson,
      William Dickson, Peter Early, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer
      Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A.
      Hanna, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Helms,
      William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson,
      Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas
      Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H.
      Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, Israel Smith,
      John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith,
      Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John
      Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R.
      Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      John P. Van Ness, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

Mr. S. SMITH said he had a communication to make, which, in his opinion,
required secrecy; whereupon the galleries were cleared.

After a short time they were opened; when the House resumed the
consideration of Mr. GRISWOLD'S resolution which lay on the table.

_Ordered_, That the Committee of the whole House, on the State of the
Union, to whom was referred, on the fifth instant, a motion respecting
official information of the cession of Louisiana to France, be
discharged from the consideration thereof; and that the said motion do
lie on the table.

Mr. BAYARD said he lamented much, that unavoidable occurrences had
prevented his attending in his place when the resolution was under
consideration upon the motion to go into a Committee of the whole House.
Having no knowledge of the arguments then employed to induce the
adoption of the resolution, he should abstain from many remarks which
obviously presented themselves on the subject, lest he should fall into
repetitions of what was familiar to the minds of the House from the
observations of other gentlemen. He must, however, be allowed to state
that it was a practice little known heretofore, but one which had
alarmingly increased of late, to resist a call for information from any
branch of the Executive Government. It cannot be on the ground of
secrecy, required by the state of affairs, for we have been often told
that a Government like ours ought to have no secrets. Though the present
times have assumed the character of _economical_, yet an honorable
member of great weight in the House, and whom he did not then observe in
his place, had remarked at the last session, with great emphasis and
effect, that no disposition to economy should ever induce him to
economize information. A stronger case than the present could not exist.
The House had been called on to act upon a question touching our
foreign relations. On such subjects, it was among the chief duties of
the Executive to acquire information. It was for this purpose that
Ministers were sent abroad, and their communications were made to the
Cabinet, to which we had a right to look upon all occasions for
information respecting the proceedings of foreign Governments which
implicated the national interest.

It is stated in the Presidential Message, that Louisiana is ceded by
Spain to France. This is an important fact. The statement in the Message
shows that the President has obtained information relative to the
cession after the fact is disclosed, which is the extent of any
indiscretion which can be committed on the subject; why conceal from us
the circumstances? The naked fact did not furnish sufficient light to
enable us to judge of the steps which it would be proper for us to
pursue. Though the country had been ceded, yet the possession remained
with the Spaniards. This created a presumption that it was not a simple,
absolute cession. If the cession be conditional or qualified, or to take
effect upon some future contingency, it is extremely material that the
House should be informed of the existence of the circumstances.

Mr. B. repeated his regret that he was not present at the discussion of
the subject which had taken place, as it was beyond his powers to
imagine a ground upon which the information requested by the resolution
could be denied. But after the resolution had been in effect negatived
on the motion to go into a Committee of the Whole, and, as he
understood, by a large majority, he should not have risen to trouble the
House but for an occurrence which had taken place since the House had
made their determination upon the resolution. An honorable member from
Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) has just laid upon our table a resolution
calling upon the House to place two millions of dollars at the
discretion of the Executive. [The SPEAKER here remarked to Mr. BAYARD,
that as the doors were no longer closed, it was not in order to refer to
what had been done when the doors were closed.] Mr. B. said he had no
disposition to transgress the rules of the House; but it was an awkward
situation, when, arguing in support of a measure, he was not at liberty
to state the strongest reason in favor of it. He would not repeat what
had escaped him; but alluding to what was in the knowledge of every
member, he considered himself allowed to urge the probability that the
House would be called upon for a grant of money. Now, sir, can gentlemen
expect that either we or the nation will in any case be satisfied to
make a large grant of money, while no information is given of the
grounds upon which the grant is required? When money is asked for,
information ought never to be denied; and, for his part, he never would
consent to give a cent, while information, which ought to be
communicated, was withheld.

Mr. B. concluded by observing, that he hoped he might still flatter
himself with the expectation, that what had recently occurred, would
induce the House to vary from the determination they had made, and adopt
the resolution.

The question was taken, that the House do agree to the resolution of Mr.
GRISWOLD, and passed in the negative--yeas 35, nays 51.


WEDNESDAY, January 12.

_Purchase of Louisiana._

[The injunction of secrecy having been removed from the following
proceedings, had in secret session, they are here inserted under the
proper date.]

_Ordered_, That the Committee of the whole House, to whom was yesterday
committed a motion in the words following, to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That a sum of two millions of dollars, in
      addition to the provision heretofore made, be appropriated
      to defray any expenses which may be incurred in relation to
      the intercourse between the United States and foreign
      nations, to be paid out of any money that may be in the
      Treasury, not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied
      under the direction of the President of the United States,
      who, if necessary, is hereby authorized to borrow the whole
      or any part thereof; an account whereof, as soon as may be,
      shall be laid before Congress:"

be discharged from the consideration thereof, and that the motion be
referred to Mr. NICHOLSON, Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. BAYARD, Mr. DICKSON, Mr.
LOWNDES, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr. GREGG; that they do examine the matter
thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the
House.

      The committee to whom was referred a resolution proposing
      an appropriation of two millions of dollars, in addition to
      the sum usually appropriated for the purposes of
      intercourse between the United States and foreign nations,
      submit the following report:

      The object of this resolution is to enable the Executive to
      commence, with more effect, a negotiation with the French
      and Spanish Governments relative to the purchase from them
      of the island of New Orleans, and the provinces of East and
      West Florida. This object is deemed highly important and
      has received the attentive consideration of the committee.
      The free and unmolested navigation of the river Mississippi
      is a point to which the attention of the General Government
      has been directed, ever since the peace of 1783, by which
      our independence as a nation was finally acknowledged. The
      immense tract of country owned by the United States, which
      lies immediately on the Mississippi, or communicates with
      it by means of large navigable rivers rising within our
      boundaries, renders its free navigation an object, not only
      of inestimable advantage, but of the very first necessity.
      The Mississippi forms the western boundary of the United
      States, from its source to the 31st degree of north
      latitude, and empties itself into the Gulf of Mexico, about
      the 29th degree of north latitude. It furnishes the only
      outlet through which the produce of the Indiana Territory,
      of the States of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and of the
      western parts of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and a portion
      of the Mississippi Territory, can be transported to a
      foreign market, or to the ports of the Atlantic States.
      From the 31st degree of north latitude, which is the
      southern boundary of the United States, to the mouth of the
      river, the territory on each side has heretofore been in
      possession of the Spanish Government; the province of
      Louisiana lying to the west, and those of East Florida,
      with the island of New Orleans, to the east. Although the
      United States have insisted on an uncontrollable right to
      pass up and down the river, from its source to the sea, yet
      this right, if admitted in its most ample latitude, will
      not secure to them the full advantages of navigation. The
      strength and rapidity of the current of the Mississippi are
      known to render its ascent so extremely difficult, that few
      vessels of burden have attempted to go as far as our
      boundary. This circumstance obliges the citizens of the
      Western country to carry their produce down the river in
      boats, from which it is put on board of ships capable of
      sustaining a sea voyage. It follows, therefore, that to
      enjoy the full benefits of navigation, some place should be
      fixed which sea vessels can approach without great
      inconvenience, where the American produce may be deposited
      until it is again shipped to be carried abroad. This great
      point was secured to us in the year 1795, by the Spanish
      Government, who agreed, in the treaty of San Lorenzo el
      Real, that Americans should have the right to deposit at
      New Orleans. This right has been used from that time till a
      late period; but the conduct of the Intendant at that place
      shows how liable the advantageous navigation of the river
      is to interruption, and strongly points out the impolicy of
      relying on a foreign nation for benefits, which our
      citizens have a right to expect should be secured to them
      by their own Government It is hoped that the port of New
      Orleans may again be opened before any very material
      injuries arise; but should this be the case, or if, as the
      treaty provides, a new place of deposit should be assigned,
      the late occurrence shows the uncertainty of its
      continuance. Experience proves that the caprice or the
      interested views of a single officer may perpetually
      subject us to the alternative of submitting to injury, or
      of resorting to war.

      The late violation of our treaty with Spain necessarily
      leads to the inquiry, how far the Western country may be
      affected in other points, not connected with New Orleans?
      The Mississippi Territory extends from the confines of
      Georgia to the river Mississippi, and from the 31st to the
      35th degree of north latitude. It is estimated to contain
      more than fifty millions of acres, and, from its numerous
      advantages, must, one day or other, possess an immense
      population. The variety, richness, and abundance of its
      productions, hold out to settlers the strongest inducements
      to resort thither, and the United States may safely
      calculate on drawing a considerable revenue from the sale
      of lands in this, as well as in other quarters of the
      Western country. The value of these, however, may be
      diminished or increased, and the sale impeded or advanced
      by the impression made on the public mind, by shutting the
      port of New Orleans, and by eventual measures which may be
      adopted to guard against similar injuries.

      West Florida is bounded on the north by the Mississippi
      Territory, from which it is separated by no natural
      boundary; on the east by the river Appalachicola, which
      divides it from East Florida; on the west by the river
      Mississippi, and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. The
      Mississippi Territory is intersected by many large and
      valuable rivers, which rise within its own boundaries and
      meander through it in a general direction, from north to
      south, but empty themselves into the Gulf of Mexico through
      the province of West Florida. In fact, with the exception
      of that part of the Territory which lies immediately on the
      Mississippi, the whole must depend on the Mobile and the
      Appalachicola, with their numerous branches, and on some
      other rivers of inferior note, for the means of sending its
      produce to market, and of returning to itself such foreign
      supplies as the necessities or convenience of its
      inhabitants may require. In these rivers, too, the Eastern
      parts of the State of Tennessee are deeply interested, as
      some of the great branches of the Mobile approach very near
      to some of those branches of the Tennessee river, which lie
      above the great Muscle shoals. Even if it should prove
      difficult to connect them, yet the land carriage will be
      shorter, and the route to the sea more direct than the
      river Tennessee furnishes. These rivers possess, likewise,
      an advantage which is denied to the Mississippi. As their
      sources are not in the mountains, and their course is
      through a level country, their currents are gentle, and the
      tide flows considerably above our boundary. This
      circumstance, together with the depth of water, which many
      of them afford, renders them accessible to sea vessels, and
      ships of two hundred tons burden may ascend for several
      hundred miles into the heart of the Mississippi Territory.
      These rivers, however, which run almost exclusively within
      our own limits, and which it would seem as if nature had
      intended for our own benefit, we must be indebted to others
      for the beneficial use of, so long as the province of West
      Florida shall continue in the possession of a foreign
      nation. If the province of West Florida were of itself an
      independent empire, it would be the interest of its
      Government to promote the freedom of trade, by laying open
      the mouths of the rivers to all nations; this having been
      the policy of those powers who possess the mouths of the
      Rhine, the Danube, the Po, and the Tagus, with some others.
      But the system of colonization which has always heretofore
      prevailed proves that the mother country is ever anxious to
      engross to itself the trade of its colonies, and affords us
      every reason to apprehend that Spain will not readily admit
      us to pass through her territory to carry on a trade either
      with each other or with foreign nations. This right we may
      insist on, and perhaps it may be conceded to us; but it is
      possible that it may be denied. At all events it may prove
      the source of endless disagreement and perpetual hostility.

      In this respect East Florida may not perhaps be so
      important, but its acquisition is nevertheless deemed
      desirable. From its junction with the State of Georgia, at
      the river St. Mary's, it stretches nearly four hundred
      miles into the sea, forming a large peninsula, and has some
      very fine harbors. The southern point, Cape Florida, is not
      more than one hundred miles distant from the Havana, and
      the possession of it may be beneficial to us in relation to
      our trade with the West Indies. It would likewise make our
      whole territory compact, would add considerably to our
      sea-coast, and by giving us the Gulf of Mexico for our
      southern boundary, would render us less liable to attack,
      in what is now deemed the most vulnerable part of the
      Union.

      From the foregoing view of facts, it must be seen that the
      possession of New Orleans and the Floridas will not only be
      required for the convenience of the United States, but
      will be demanded by their most imperious necessities. The
      Mississippi and its branches, with those of other rivers
      above referred to, drain an extent of country, not less,
      perhaps, than one half of our whole territory, containing
      at this time one-eighth of our population and progressing
      with a rapidity beyond the experience of any former time,
      or of any other nation. The Floridas and New Orleans
      command the only outlets to the sea, and our best interests
      require that we should get possession of them. This
      requisition, however, arises not from a disposition to
      increase our territory; for neither the Floridas nor New
      Orleans offer any other inducements than their mere
      geographical relation to the United States. But if we look
      forward to the free use of the Mississippi, the Mobile, the
      Appalachicola, and the other rivers of the West, by
      ourselves and our posterity, New Orleans and the Floridas
      must become a part of the United States, either by purchase
      or by conquest.

      The great question, then, which presents itself is, shall
      we at this time lay the foundation for future peace by
      offering a fair and equivalent consideration; or shall we
      hereafter incur the hazards and the horrors of war? The
      Government of the United States is differently organized
      from any other in the world. Its object is the happiness of
      man: its policy and its interest, to pursue right by right
      means. War is the great scourge of the human race, and
      should never be resorted to but in cases of the most
      imperious necessity. A wise government will avoid it, when
      its views can be attained by peaceful measures. Princes
      fight for glory, and the blood and treasure of their
      subjects is the price they pay. In all nations the people
      bear the burden of war, and in the United States the people
      rule. Their Representatives are the guardians of their
      rights, and it is the duty of those Representatives to
      provide against any event which may, even at a distant day,
      involve the interests and the happiness of the nation. We
      may, indeed, have our rights restored to us by treaty, but
      there is a want of fortitude in applying temporary remedies
      to permanent evils; thereby imposing on our posterity a
      burden which we ourselves ought to bear. If the purchase
      can be made, we ought not to hesitate. If the attempt
      should fail, we shall have discharged an important duty.

      War may be the result, but the American nation, satisfied
      with our conduct, will be animated by one soul, and will
      unite all its energies in the contest. Foreign powers will
      be convinced that it is not a war of aggrandizement on our
      part, and will feel no unreasonable jealousies towards us.
      We shall have proved that our object was justice; it will
      be seen that our propositions were fair: and it will be
      acknowledged that our cause is honorable. Should alliances
      be necessary they may be advantageously formed. We shall
      have merited, and shall therefore possess, general
      confidence. Our measures will stand justified, not only to
      ourselves and our country, but to the world.

      In another point of view, perhaps, it would be preferable
      to make the purchase, as it is believed that a smaller sum
      would be required for this subject, than would necessarily
      be expended, if we should attempt to take possession by
      force; the expenses of a war being, indeed, almost
      incalculable. The committee have no information before
      them, to ascertain the amount for which the purchase can be
      made, but it is hoped, that with the assistance of two
      millions of dollars in hand, this will not be unreasonable.
      A similar course was pursued for the purpose of settling
      our differences with the Regency of Algiers, by an
      appropriation of one million of dollars, prior to the
      commencement of the negotiation, and we have since
      experienced its beneficial effects.

      Under these impressions, therefore, the committee recommend
      the adoption of the resolution referred to them in the
      following words, viz:

      _Resolved_, That a sum of two millions of dollars in
      addition to the provision heretofore made, be appropriated
      to defray the expenses which may be incurred in relation to
      the intercourse between the United States and foreign
      nations; to be paid out of any money that may be in the
      treasury not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied
      under the direction of the President of the United States;
      who, if necessary is hereby authorized to borrow the same,
      or any part thereof, an account whereof, as soon as may be,
      shall be laid before Congress.[76]


THURSDAY, January 13.

Another member, to wit, WILLIAM JONES, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.

_Franking Privilege._

Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole, on the amendments offered by the Senate to the bill making
appropriations for the Military Establishment for the year 1803.

The first amendment, applying an addition of two thousand dollars for
the purchase of books, maps, and instruments for the use of the War
Department, was agreed to.

On the second, adding $4,500 for the payment of postage on letters to
and from the inspector, paymaster, &c., a lengthy debate ensued.

It was opposed on another ground--as being the duty of the Secretary of
War to frank all letters going from the offices attached to the War
Department, and, therefore, an appropriation was unnecessary.

In answer, it was observed, that the Government must, and ought, in some
way, to support the expense of transporting returns, orders, and
letters, relating to the military service; and, if they would not make
an appropriation, it was proposed to extend the privilege of franking to
the paymaster and inspector, through whom most of the details for the
Army passed. That it was not the duty of the Secretary to frank letters
and packages going from other offices--it was making a clerk of
him--obliging him to do that which neither the law nor the constitution
contemplated as being attached to his office; that it would encroach
upon the time which, must necessarily be devoted to more important
concerns. Besides, were he able and willing to perform the drudgery of
that service, it was doubtful whether he had any legal or constitutional
right to frank any packages, except those going immediately and directly
from his own particular office, and that he might be liable to a
penalty, though he should frank letters on public business, relating to
the Army and War Department generally.

The extension of the privilege of franking was opposed by the Speaker,
(Mr. MACON,) and others. They considered all franking as wrong, and
liable to abuse--they would rather restrict than extend this privilege.

In reply, it was said that, if confidence could not be placed in those
officers, as to the privilege of franking, the imposition could not be
prevented by referring their packets to the Secretary of War, or by
paying their account current with the postmasters. It was evident the
Government must pay those expenses; that it could make no difference as
to the revenue, whether the Postmaster General's Department received and
paid to the Treasury the money which was drawn from the contingent fund
of the War Department, or from a special appropriation to defray the
expenses of postage on military letters and packets, or whether they
extended the privilege of franking to those officers from and through
whom the military details must pass. In the former case, it was but
taking from one pocket and putting in the other--in the latter, much
trouble was saved; and, if the characters employed in those departments
were worthy of a confidence which should entitle them to the places they
hold, it could never be supposed that they would abuse the privilege of
franking.

On motion of Mr. GRISWOLD, seconded by Mr. EUSTIS, the committee rose
and the amendments from the Senate were recommitted to the Committee of
Ways and Means.

_Amendment of the Bankrupt Act._

Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the act would not be amended, but repealed. When it
passed, he was one of those who entered his protest against it. He
considered it in the nature of an _ex post facto_ law--an allurement to
fraud--tending to corrupt the morals of the community--to change the
nature of contracts--to discharge men, not only for their obligations
and their solemn promises, but to violate their oaths. And, because
Congress had a right to enact such a law, would gentlemen say it was for
the benefit of trade? Its operations had been the reverse. He had been
waiting, ever since its establishment, for the merchants themselves to
come forward and urge the repeal. A portion of them had petitioned for
amendments, which, in fact, amounted to a request for a repeal.

Mr. S. SMITH thought any arguments on the merits of the question were
premature. It was a subject of too much importance to be hurried in that
manner. He hoped it would be recommitted.

Mr. NICHOLSON.--Many gentlemen appeared to wish a repeal, because there
were some injurious provisions in the law; others wished it might be
amended, believing it was capable of such alterations as would remove
their objections. He thought it in some respects defective, and in
others beneficial. If the evils to which it was subjected could be
remedied, he should be for retaining, if not, for repealing the law.

Mr. SMILIE.--Considering the situation of the United States, he thought
there never should have been a bankrupt law; but he doubted whether it
would be expedient to repeal it at this time, but let it expire of
itself. He believed much mischief had been produced by it, and if it was
repealed now, he apprehended much more would ensue. Its natural life was
but five years, and he thought it had better exist for that period than
be repealed. He was for recommitment.

Mr. BAYARD agreed with the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. NICHOLSON,) and
thought the committee should have inquired what amendments were
expedient. He was also forcibly impressed with the remarks of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SMILIE,) that it was better to suffer
the law to expire of itself than repeal it now. He did not think that
the House were prepared to go into a discussion. The argument of the
gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that the bankrupt law was _ex
post facto_, would not apply; but an act to repeal would in reality be
an _ex post facto_ law. Many merchants had entered into contracts,
having an eye to the bankrupt law; many had embarked in perilous
enterprises, knowing, that if they had made unfortunate calculations,
that by a surrender of their effects they might again engage in
commercial pursuits. And though a man might be discharged from his
contracts, the sense of moral obligation was not impaired--in _foro
conscientiæ_ he was still answerable. He would not deny that frauds were
committed, but for this should the honest debtor be eternally fettered
with his debts? Should he, from unavoidable accidents, be cast into
prison, and his family reduced to misery and distress? He was sure that
the gentleman would revolt at the idea. Were the bankrupt law repealed,
they must substitute the insolvent laws of the different States. Did not
the insolvent laws of the Southern States hold out the same allurements
to fraud as the general bankrupt law? By a repeal, they would increase
the evils, and destroy the benefits of the general system. We were, said
Mr. B., a great commercial Republic; the connection between merchants of
the different States was increasing; therefore, the merchant of Georgia
and the merchant of New Hampshire should be subjected to general
regulations. Now, the merchant of Pennsylvania trusting the merchant of
Virginia knew that his whole estate, real and personal, was liable for
the payment of his debts; whereas, by the insolvent laws of that State,
(Virginia,) the former might give an extensive credit; the latter might
vest it all in land, which was untangible for the payment of his demand.
The bankrupt act was a commercial law, extending equal benefits
throughout the Union. If it was suffered to go back to the select
committee, they would be able to give a clearer view of its advantages
and defects. It was a subject of incalculable importance, both as it
respected the debtor and creditor, and he hoped it would meet a candid
and deliberate investigation.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that the affairs of the world had been found to suffer
more from being put in the hands of those who were superior to the
management of them, than from those who were inadequate to the execution
of those objects intrusted to them. It had been allowed a sound rule of
construction, that all general powers must be confined to particular
exceptions. The constitution gave Congress the right of making a
bankrupt law, but it did not give the power of impairing contracts. He
would exonerate the person, but never the property. It was the case in
Virginia, when a man had surrendered all his property, his person was
liberated, but his property never. And though we were a commercial
Republic, was it not necessary to take care of the agricultural
interest? How did the bankrupt law operate upon the planter? He knew by
experience that it had been in many instances ruinous; that many
planters had been _choused_ out of their property by the operations of
this very law. He had known from experience that many men had been
buoyed up and supported by their friends till those friends were made
good, and then suffered to fail, to the great injury of the former.

Mr. BACON was in favor of a reference to a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. S. SMITH said, gentlemen seemed to consider the bankrupt law as made
entirely for the benefit of the debtor. That was an erroneous opinion.
It was made also for the creditor: as such he advocated it. It enabled
the creditor to secure his property, if he found the debtor was disposed
to be fraudulent: he could apply for a commission of bankruptcy, and
make the debtor account for the property in his possession. Besides, it
reduced the creditors to an equality--a debtor could not secure his
friends, and leave the rest of his creditors without a dollar. An
instance of that kind had lately come within his knowledge. To the
agricultural interest it held out still greater advantages. The farmer
who brought his produce to market could always get _cash_, if he would
sell for _cash_; if he chose to sell on a credit, he received a higher
price in proportion; that increase of price was his insurance for
selling on credit. He was for examining the subject, and endeavoring to
remedy defects, rather than repealing.

Mr. HOLLAND moved that it be referred to a Committee of the whole House.
Carried.


FRIDAY, January 14.

_Monument to Gen. Gates._

Mr. VAN NESS moved the following resolution:

      _Resolved_, That a monument be erected in commemoration of
      the patriotism, valor, and good conduct of Major General
      Horatio Gates, who, in the late Revolutionary war,
      commanded the American forces that captured General
      Burgoyne and the British army under his command, at
      Saratoga, in the State of New York.

_Ordered_, That the said motion be referred to the committee to whom was
committed, on the tenth instant, the bill sent from the Senate, entitled
"An act to carry into effect several resolutions of Congress for
erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals Wooster,
Herkimer, Davidson, and Scriven."


MONDAY, January 17.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia SAMUEL J. CABELL, and from
North Carolina ROBERT WILLIAMS, appeared, and took their seats in the
House.

_Emancipated Slaves from French West Indies._

A memorial of sundry inhabitants of the town of Wilmington, in the State
of North Carolina, was presented to the House and read, stating that a
certain number of negroes or mulattoes, to whom emancipation has been
granted by the Executive of the French Government in the Island of
Guadaloupe, had been recently landed at the said town of Wilmington;
that, in the opinion of the memorialists, much danger to the peace and
safety of the people of the Southern States of the Union in particular,
is justly to be apprehended from the admission of persons of that
description into the United States, from the West India Islands; and
praying that Congress will be pleased to take the premises into
consideration, and adopt such effectual measures for prevention thereof,
as they in their wisdom may deem proper.

_Ordered_, That the said memorial be referred to Mr. HILL, Mr. EARLY,
Mr. HUGER, Mr. RANDOLPH, and Mr. CAMPBELL, to report their opinion
thereupon to the House.

_Case of John P. Van Ness._

Mr. DAVIS called up the report of the Committee of Elections on the case
of John P. Van Ness.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the report, as follows:

      "That, from the free concessions and agreement of the said
      member, it appears to your committee that he has accepted
      and exercised the office of a major of the militia, under
      the authority of the United States, within the Territory of
      Columbia; and that a paragraph in the sixth section of the
      first article of the constitution, which expressly
      provides, that 'No person holding any office under the
      United States, shall be a member of either House during his
      continuance in office,' does, in the opinion of your
      committee, render the acceptance and exercise of the office
      aforesaid incompatible with the holding, at the same time,
      of a seat in the House.

      "Your committee, therefore, ask leave to submit to the
      House the following resolution, to wit:

      "_Resolved_, That John. P. Van Ness, one of the members of
      this House, having accepted and exercised the office of
      major of militia, under the authority of the United States,
      within the Territory of Columbia, has thereby forfeited his
      right to a seat as a member of this House."

Mr. VAN NESS said he would make a remark or two that would, perhaps,
remove any impressions of indelicacy on his part in retaining his seat
under the circumstances in which he was placed. He considered himself as
standing on that floor, not as a private individual, but as a
Representative of New York; and as holding a trust which he was not
authorized to abandon before a constitutional decision should be made.
His constituents had placed him there as the guardian of their rights;
and that trust he could not desert without a constitutional decision
being made. If that decision should be adverse to his retaining his
seat, in retiring from the House he should feel no regret but at leaving
his constituents unrepresented during the remainder of the session, at
not having discharged all the business assigned him by the Chair, and at
ceasing to associate with gentlemen whom, for the most part, he
respected. In a pecuniary view, the relinquishing his seat could not in
the least affect him; nor should he consider it disreputable to leave a
body without any imputation of dishonor or impropriety.

The reasons he should offer to the committee for retaining his seat,
were few and simple. He thought the fair, liberal, and sound
construction of the constitution did not affect his case; that the
incapacitating provision only applied to civil offices. The constitution
was only a digest of the most approved principles of the constitutions
of the several States, in which the spirit of those constitutions were
combined. Not one of those constitutions excluded from office those who
had accepted military appointments, except in the regular service. He,
therefore, felt a full conviction that it was never the intention of the
framers of the Constitution of the United States to exclude militia
officers from holding a seat in Congress. And however important it might
be to adhere to the letter of the constitution, yet, when the spirit of
it was so clear as it appeared to him, it ought to have weight in the
decision of the question before the committee, which might affect
objects of great importance. The right of every portion of the Union to
a representation in that House was very important, and ought to be
respected in all cases which may either directly or indirectly affect
it. Gentlemen, therefore, ought to reflect before they deprive a part of
the Union of this important right.

Had he supposed that the acceptance of an office in the militia would
have interfered with his seat in that House, he would never have
accepted it. He had never entertained a doubt on this point until
broached in the House. Since then, he had heard various opinions. By
what he had heard, his own opinion was not changed, as he believed that
a true construction of the constitution would exclude his case. Should,
however, a decision against his holding his seat be made, he should
retire without any other regret than that which he had expressed. He had
not risen to argue the case as an advocate, but merely to assign the
grounds on which he had acted.

The question was then taken on the report of the Committee of Elections,
which was agreed to without a division.

The committee rose, and the House immediately took up their report.

Mr. RANDOLPH observed that, on a precedent so important as was about to
be established by the vote of the House, it was unnecessary to say a
word. He wished, however, that the disposition of the House to exclude,
by a unanimous vote, even the shadow of Executive influence, should be
recorded on their journals; for which purpose he called the yeas and
nays; which were taken, and were unanimously in favor of the resolution.


MONDAY, January 24.

A new member, to wit, RICHARD WINN, returned to serve in this House as a
member from South Carolina, in the room of Thomas Sumter, appointed a
Senator of the United States, appeared, produced his credentials, and
took his seat in the House.

_Ohio Territorial Delegate unseated._

On a motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following
resolution:

      _Resolved_, That, inasmuch as the late Territory of the
      United States north-west of the river Ohio have, by virtue
      of an act of Congress passed on the first day of May, one
      thousand eight hundred and two, formed a Constitution and
      State Government, and have thereby, and by virtue of an act
      of Congress aforesaid, become a separate and independent
      State, by the name of "Ohio," that PAUL FEARING, a member
      of this House, who was elected by the late Territorial
      Government of the Territory north-west of the river Ohio,
      is no longer entitled to a seat in this House:

_Ordered_, That the said motion be referred to the Committee of
Elections: that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same,
with their opinion thereupon, to the House.

_French Spoliations._

Mr. MITCHILL rose to address the House on a subject of a commercial
nature. He alluded to the depredations committed upon the commerce of
the United States, by French armed vessels, during the late war in
Europe. The gentlemen of the House would, he hoped, turn their
attention, for a few minutes, to the numerous memorials received from
our merchants during the last session, praying compensation for those
losses. These papers were numerous and respectful, and came from a most
valuable portion of our fellow-citizens. Their grievances had not
hitherto been redressed, nor even inquired into with the minuteness
which it appeared to him to deserve. It was true a committee, numerous
and intelligent, had been appointed during the last session, to examine
the matter of these applications. A report had been made to the House.
This report was full of information concerning the political and
commercial connection between the United States and France. It comprised
a concise and correct history of what had been done on both sides, since
the mutual misunderstandings arose. It was a valuable document, as far
as it went; but it did not conclude with any recommendation of a mode of
relief, or even of investigation. It stopped short with the historical
narrative, without proposing even a mode of further inquiry. During the
present session, nothing further had been done or attempted. Early after
the Congress assembled, he had himself given notice of an intention to
revive the subject. It was confessedly of magnitude enough to merit
investigation. This notice, he remembered, was given previous to the
receipt of the message from the Executive. But the multitude of public
business that had grown out of that communication, added to other
subjects, had so completely occupied his mind, that he had hitherto
suffered it to pass on without bestowing on it the consideration which
he owned that it deserved. He was now ready to make amends for this
inadvertent or necessary, certainly not intentional, delay. He had
heard, with satisfaction, the call of the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. LOWNDES) for his (Mr. MITCHILL'S) promised motion. He acknowledged
the hint of that gentleman to be seasonable, and felt himself obliged to
him for acting the part of a good prompter. To show that gentleman that
he had profited by the suggestion made on Friday last, he had now risen
with an intention to lay a resolve upon the table. The object of the
resolve was to cause an inquiry to be entered upon, by a special
Committee of the House, as to what amount of property, or its value in
current money, had been taken from the Americans during the late war by
the cruisers of France. The committee could devise some mode of
ascertaining the magnitude of the sufferings complained of. This he
considered as the first step that ought to be taken, towards the
procuring of redress for the petitioners. And, until this was taken, he
believed nothing was likely to be done. Another object of the resolve he
was about to offer, was to instruct the same committee to inquire into
the different classes of captures and claims. He did not suppose that
all the petitioners were entitled to compensation. Some of them, he
knew, were not; but it was equally clear that some of them were. This
complicated mass of applications could be examined by a committee, who
could draw some distinctions that would be useful. They could tell, for
instance, that one sort were lawful captures for and on account of
contraband, others for want of a _rôle d'équipage_, others were taken
wrongfully, without any cause whatever, and the like. Some judgment
might be formed in this way of the probable amount that might be
contemplated as bona fide claims. He suspected this amount would be but
an inconsiderable part of the gross amount of captures. But whether it
was large or small, he hoped an examination would be attempted; and, for
that purpose, he moved the following resolution:

      _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire by
      what means the value or amount of property taken from
      citizens of the United States by the French, during the
      late war in Europe, can be best ascertained, and the
      several sorts of captures distinguished and classed, and
      report their opinion thereon to this House, to the end that
      indemnification may be made.

Mr. MITCHILL then said, that he did not press an instant decision upon
it; but wished it to lie a day or two on the table for consideration.


THURSDAY, January 27.

_United States Judges._

The several petitions of William Tilghman, Oliver Wolcott, Richard
Bassett, Charles Magill, Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert
Benson, Philip B. Key, William Griffith, Jeremiah Smith, and George K.
Taylor, were presented to the House and read, respectively representing,
that, by an act of Congress, passed on the thirteenth day of February,
one thousand eight hundred and one, entitled "An act for the more
convenient organization of the courts of the United States," certain
judicial offices were created, and courts established, called Circuit
Courts of the United States: That, in virtue of appointments made under
the Constitution of the United States, the petitioners became vested
with the offices so created, and received commissions, authorizing them
to hold the same, with the emoluments thereunto appertaining, during
their good behavior: That, during the last session, an act of Congress
passed, by which the above-mentioned law was declared to be repealed;
since which no law has been made for assigning to the petitioners the
execution of any judicial function, nor has any provision been made for
the payment of their stipulated compensations: That, under these
circumstances, and finding it expressly declared in the Constitution of
the United States that "the Judges both of the Supreme and Inferior
Courts shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at
stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not
be diminished during their continuance in office," that petitioners are
compelled to represent it as their opinion, that the rights secured to
them by the constitution, as members of the Judicial Department, have
been impaired: That, "with this sincere conviction, and influenced by a
sense of public duty, they most respectfully request of Congress to
review the existing laws, which respect the offices in question, and to
define the duties to be performed by the petitioners, by such provisions
as shall be consistent with the constitution, and the convenient
administration of justice:" That "the right of the petitioners to their
compensations, they sincerely believe to be secured by the constitution,
notwithstanding any modification of the Judicial Department, which, in
the opinion of Congress, public convenience may recommend. This right,
however, involving a personal interest, will cheerfully be submitted to
Judicial examination and decision, in such manner as the wisdom and
impartiality of Congress may prescribe: That judges should not be
deprived of their offices or compensations, without misbehavior,
appears, to the petitioners, to be among the first and best established
principles of the American constitutions; and, in the various reforms
they have undergone, it has been preserved and guarded with increased
solicitude: That, on this basis, the Constitution of the United States
has laid the foundation of the Judicial Department, and expressed its
meaning in terms equally plain and peremptory:" That, "this being the
deliberate and solemn opinion of the petitioners, the duty of their
stations requires that they should express it to the Legislative body.
They regret the necessity which compels them to make the representation;
and they confide, that it will be attributed to a conviction that they
ought not, voluntarily, to surrender rights and authorities intrusted to
their protection, not for their personal advantage, but for the benefit
of the community."

Mr. GRISWOLD moved a reference of the foregoing memorial to a select
committee.

Mr. GREGG observed that, according to the usual mode of transacting
business, it ought to go to the Committee of Claims. He, therefore, made
that motion.

Mr. RANDOLPH did not think a select committee, or the Committee of
Claims, a proper committee to whom to refer this memorial. What is its
nature? Does it embrace any point of fact on which a committee is to
make inquiry? No. It is a broad constitutional question. He was,
therefore, in favor of having it examined, where it must eventually be
settled, in the House. If, therefore, the memorial had any reference, it
ought to be referred to a Committee of the whole House; to which effect
he made a motion.

Mr. BACON hoped this last motion would not obtain. He did not know what
there was in this petition to distinguish it from any other petition
from any citizens of the United States. It was suggested that it
involved a great constitutional question. He did not know that this was
the case. Any thing might be made a constitutional question. But he
thought this question had been already determined by the whole
Legislature on the most mature deliberation. He saw nothing to
distinguish this petition from other petitions. He would not say that
it would be doing it too much honor, but it would be making too wide a
difference between similar applications to adopt this course. He was,
therefore, for pursuing the common course.

Mr. GRISWOLD had no objection to a reference of the memorial to a
Committee of the Whole. Perhaps that would be the better mode. It was
true, as the gentleman from Virginia had stated, that a very important
constitutional question may arise on this memorial. Nor did he know, as
represented by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. BACON,) that all
the constitutional questions involved in the subject had been settled by
the decision of the last session. He had understood the gentleman
himself, in his speech, during the last session, to have said that the
question of compensation was a very different question from that then
under discussion. He was not absolutely certain that that gentleman
expressed such an opinion, but he was certain that some gentlemen of the
majority did. As the memorial was couched in terms of great respect, he
trusted there would be no objection on the part of the House to give it
a proper attention.

Mr. RANDOLPH would concisely answer the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Does this question involve an inquiry either into matter of expediency
or of fact? With respect to fact, they were all agreed. The judges make
the question turn on a construction given to the constitution; it was,
therefore, indubitably a constitutional question, on which a committee
could not decide. The House, then, must decide. It appeared to him to be
the plainest case on earth. No doubt constitutional questions may arise
on many points. He hoped, therefore, the House would itself decide it.
For his part, he considered the decision as already made. He hoped the
memorial would be taken up that day.

Mr. SMILIE was against referring the memorial to a Committee of the
Whole. If the subject had not been already maturely considered and
discussed at the greatest length, he should be in favor of such a
reference. But it had been most fully discussed. If they meant to sit
there to the neglect of the important business, they ought to go into
Committee of the Whole; but if they meant to do the public business,
they ought not. Gentlemen should recollect the time spent in this
discussion the last session.

Mr. DANA thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania did not calculate
correctly. The same object, as to debate, would be attained in the House
as in a Committee of the Whole. For he would recollect, that
notwithstanding the length of the debate of the last session, and though
the House were in Committee, no gentleman had spoken more than once;
and, according to the rules of the House, every member had a right to
speak twice.

Mr. DANA said that he agreed with the gentleman from Virginia in the
ideas he had expressed.

The question was then taken on Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion to refer the
memorial to a Committee of the whole House, and carried--ayes 53.

The SPEAKER inquired for what day it should be made the order.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, to-day.

Mr. GRISWOLD, to-morrow.

The question was taken on Mr. GRISWOLD'S motion, and lost--ayes 38, noes
51.

Mr. HUGER moved that it should be the order for Monday. It must be
evident, that the members had not yet sufficiently attended to the
subject to be prepared for a decision. It was a very different question
from that decided the last session. It certainly required some little
time to enable gentlemen to revolve it in their minds. It was not usual
to force decisions in that way. If it was the object of gentlemen merely
to vote it out, a majority must do as they please; but if they were
disposed to pay it ordinary respect, they certainly could not urge so
precipitate a discussion.

Mr. RANDOLPH asked if it were in order, after the question had been
taken, to name another day. He said he would not have urged an immediate
consideration of the memorial, but for the conviction that the subject,
in all its bearings, had undergone the maturest investigation, not only
of every member on that floor, but of every thinking man in the United
States.

The SPEAKER decided that the moving another day was not in order.

The question on going into a Committee of the Whole this day, was then
carried without a division. Whereupon,

Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the House should go into committee immediately.

The SPEAKER said the unfinished business of yesterday would be the first
acted upon unless postponed.

Mr. RANDOLPH moved the postponement of the unfinished business till
to-morrow. Carried.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
memorial--Mr. DAWSON in the chair.

The memorial of William Tilghman was read; which was accompanied by ten
other _verbatim_ memorials, signed by Oliver Wolcott, Jeremiah Smith,
Richard Bassett, Philip B. Key, George K. Taylor, Charles Magill, Samuel
Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Benson, and William Griffiths.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, he did not think it proper to enter into an extensive
discussion of the memorial. The haste with which the consideration of it
was urged, appeared to him indicative of a disposition to reject it
altogether. Under such circumstances discussion would be useless. At the
same time, he would remark, that it involved a question very different
from that decided at the last session. It had, then, been decided that
the Legislature had the constitutional right to deprive the judges of
all Judicial power; but the question never was settled, that,
notwithstanding the judges should be deprived of all their Judicial
powers, they were not entitled to the compensation guaranteed by the
constitution. This involved a distinct point, which ought not to be
hastily acted upon. The judges had never been heard before Congress on
this question. They had a right by the constitution to be heard, and to
be heard by counsel, he presumed, if they desired it. He had thought the
House would have given time for them to be heard. But they had
determined to proceed immediately. He should, therefore, be content with
moving two resolutions.

Mr. GRISWOLD here read his resolutions as follows:

      _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law to
      define the powers to be exercised by the judges of the
      circuit courts of the United States, who were appointed
      under an act, entitled "An act to provide for the more
      convenient organization of the courts of the United
      States."

      _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law for
      submitting to judicial decision the right of the judges of
      the circuit court to their compensations.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, the provision desired by the gentleman from
Connecticut already exists. The Legislature has defined the powers of
the late circuit judges, and has decided that they shall not execute any
powers. Those powers are transferred to other courts. Unless the House
had changed their opinion, it was not necessary to go into any
discussion on this point. The readiest and fairest course for gentlemen
would be to propose to repeal the law of the last session, and restore
the judges.

The question was then taken on the first resolution, and lost--ayes 34,
noes 56.

The CHAIRMAN then read the second resolution, as follows:

      _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law for
      submitting to judicial decision the right of the judges of
      the circuit court to their compensations.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he was not ready for the question. He had one or two
remarks to offer, which had suggested themselves during the reading of
the resolution. It had been repeatedly decided that the United States
would not permit themselves to be brought into their own courts.
Wherefore grant to a particular class of persons, in a single case, that
which had ever been refused to the war-worn soldier of the Revolution;
especially when it should be recollected that this case, involving the
interests of judges, as a _caste_, could not be decided by any judicial
tribunal free from bias?

A doctrine is advanced new to this House, which I have been told
originated with an eminent character on the bench of the United States;
I did not hear the gentleman from Connecticut distinctly, but I
understand him as subscribing to it; that Congress may,
constitutionally, deprive a judge of all authority, and transfer to
another his powers and duties, but that the office nevertheless remains,
and the judge, of course, entitled to his compensation. The constitution
says that "the judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, and
shall, for their services, receive a compensation." Without entering
into a question which has already been so fully discussed, he would
barely remark, that if the position just advanced be correct, the words
"compensation" and "office," which the constitution supposes, and every
one believes, to have distinct and different meanings, must be
convertible terms. For when the powers and duties are taken away, what,
let me ask, is left but a salary? The word office must be rendered by
the word salary.

Mr. DANA.--The question of compensation to the judges involved
considerations very distinct from those ordinarily decided upon in that
House. Most of the individual cases brought here were made in pursuance
of some particular law, and did not call in question the authority of
Congress. If the case of the judges were to be referred to any tribunal,
the right to refer was founded on the principle of controlling the
decisions of the Legislature in case those decisions should appear to
the tribunal to be unconstitutional. It was, therefore, in this view not
proper to refer the question to a tribunal dependent on the body to be
controlled. This was the only course that would probably be deemed
impartial by all the parties concerned.

Mr. BACON said the true question was on the constitutionality of the
repealing law. One Congress had passed a law constituting certain
courts, which at the last session had been repealed. Now of what do
courts consist? Of judges, who are officers of the court. The question
is, whether by abolishing the courts, these officers are abolished. He
supposed they were. He considered the terms as synonymous. Now the
question is whether, if the offices are abolished, those who filled them
before they were abolished are entitled to salaries? That is the only
question that remains undetermined. What does the constitution say?
Admitting the offices abolished, it says: "The judges, both of the
supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good
behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a
compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
office."

Does it not follow that if they continue in office they are entitled to
a salary for the services they perform. If they do not continue in
office they are entitled to nothing, and the constitution has no
reference to them. This is the true question.

Mr. SMILIE would ask whether the Supreme Court in such a case as this
could be denominated an impartial tribunal? He asked if they had not
seen the time when, during the disputes between the clergy and laity, no
wise man, not of the clerical order, would have trusted himself in the
hands of the clergy? The same remark applied to the military, and also,
with equal force, to the Judges of the Supreme Court. He really,
however, thought that the judges would not receive the salaries, even if
they were offered to them, as it would be contrary to every idea of
patriotism. He, therefore, considered the application as a mere matter
of form.

Mr. NICHOLSON.--The resolution contemplated giving the power to try the
right of the judges to their claims; but the great object in reality was
to authorize the judges of the Supreme Court to decide upon the
constitutionality of the repealing act. Let this object, then, be
avowed; let it be so declared openly, and not introduced in this
incidental manner. From the remarks made last year by gentlemen on the
other side of the House, it was a little surprising that this
application should be made, for it was then strenuously contended that
the Supreme Court had the right to decide upon the constitutionality of
all laws. Why, then, ask for it? If they have this right we need not
confer it; if they have it not, we cannot give it them. If the
petitioning judges can bring their case before the Supreme Court, let
them do so; my consent shall never authorize it. If the Supreme Court
shall arrogate this power to themselves, and declare our law to be
unconstitutional, it will then behoove us to act. Our duty is defined.

Mr. EUSTIS said when the office of judge was abolished all his duties
ceased. The salary allowed was a compensation for services. Now when
there were no services to be performed, what salary could there be
allowed, or what retribution demanded? on what did this claim rest? On
the opinion of the judges. But by the decision of the last winter their
offices were abolished; it followed, therefore, of consequence, that
their salaries ceased too. This was a plain and simple question. He
considered the memorial as the protest of the judges against this
decision. As such, he was willing that it should rest on the files of
the House, and instead of being offended at this treatment the judges
ought to be thankful.

Mr. DANA said the ideas of the gentleman from Massachusetts were in one
respect correct. The memorial of the judges was a protest against the
law passed by Congress. It was proper they should make it, so far as
they confined themselves to language not indecorous or disrespectful. He
would admit likewise that the question of powers decided the question of
salary; others however entertained a different opinion. Why object then,
in a case where there was a difference of opinion, to refer the decision
to an impartial tribunal? The only question is whether in a contest for
power, you, the Legislature, will claim the exclusive exercise of power,
and whether, even if you shall exceed the constitutional limits, you
will assert the entire right of saying so, or whether you will refer it
to a tribunal which shall be an umpire between those who hold different
opinions?

Mr. ALSTON said the resolution required amendment. As it now stood, it
would appear that all the late judges of the circuit court claimed a
compensation for services not rendered. He believed this was not the
case. There were some of those judges who had made no such request. He,
therefore, moved to insert the name of those who had presented
memorials; also to insert the word "late" before the word "judges."

Carried without a division.

The resolution as amended stood thus:

      _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law for
      submitting to judicial decision the right of William
      Tilghman, Oliver Wolcott, Jeremiah Smith, Richard Bassett,
      Philip B. Key, George K. Taylor, Charles Magill, Samuel
      Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Benson, and William
      Griffiths, late judges of the circuit court appointed under
      an act entitled "An act to provide for the more convenient
      organization of the courts of the United States passed on
      the thirteenth day of February, 1801;" which said act was
      repealed at the last session of Congress, to their
      compensations.

On which the question being put, it was lost--ayes 35 noes 57.

Mr. VARNUM observed that the memorial contained two principles, both of
which had been negatived. To draw the attention to a final decision he
would move another resolution, to wit:

      _Resolved_, That the prayer of the petition of William
      Tilghman and others, (naming them,) late judges of the
      circuit courts of the United States, ought not to be
      granted, and that the petitioners have leave to withdraw
      their petitions.

Mr. T. MORRIS moved that the committee should rise and report progress,
that the petition might be printed. Negatived without a division.

The resolution was then carried without a division, when the committee
rose and reported it.

The House immediately took it into consideration; when

Mr. RANDOLPH moved to strike out the words, "late judges of the circuit
courts of the United States."

Mr. GRISWOLD said he presumed it was not the object to expunge all
evidence of these gentlemen being judges, or late judges of the circuit
courts of the United States, and yet that would appear to be the effect
of the motion. He must, therefore, call for the yeas and nays, which
would make that fact be recorded on the journals.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he had made the motion that the resolution might
conform to the prayer of the petition. Had the memorialists called
themselves late judges, he should have had no objection to their being
so designated in the resolution. His wish was to style them in the
resolution as they had styled themselves.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, though they had not expressly styled themselves
circuit judges, yet they had stated that they had been appointed circuit
judges under a law of the United States. They had therefore virtually so
styled themselves.

A few words were added by Mr. EUSTIS against it, and by Messrs. RANDOLPH
and NICHOLSON in favor of striking out the words, when the question was
taken by yeas and nays and carried--yeas 50, nays 47.

And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the
resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House, amended to
read as follows:

      _Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitions of William
      Tilghman, Oliver Wolcott, Richard Bassett, Charles Magill,
      Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert Benson, Philip B.
      Key, William Griffith, Jeremiah Smith and George K. Taylor,
      ought not to be granted; and that the petitioners have
      leave to withdraw their petitions.

It was resolved in the affirmative, yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Phanuel
      Bishop, Walter Bowie, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William
      Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay,
      John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, Thomas T. Davis,
      John Dawson, William Dickson, Peter Early, Lucas
      Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray,
      Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, Joseph
      Heister, William Helms, William Hoge, James Holland, David
      Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether,
      Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Mott, Anthony New,
      Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph,
      jr., John Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of New York,)
      John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith,
      Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, John
      Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R.
      Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
      Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Robert Williams, Richard
      Winn, and Thomas Wynns.

      NAYS.--Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel
      W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster, Calvin
      Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth
      Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H.
      Hill, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer
      Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Elias Perkins,
      Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shepard,
      John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Benjamin
      Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas
      Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer,
      Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.


FRIDAY, January 28.

_Presents to a Minister's Wife._

Mr. SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from Col. Humphreys, late
Minister at the Court of Madrid, stating that, when he was about to
leave that Court, the Minister of State urged his acceptance of the
customary present from His Majesty. Col. Humphreys informed him that he
could not, consistently with the constitution of his Government, accept
the present. The Minister continued to press the acceptance, and urged
that as he was no longer an officer of the United States, there could be
no impropriety in his receiving it. Col. H. replied that, though he was
then out of office, there would still, in his opinion, be an indelicacy
in the acceptance, and that if he should receive the present designed
for him, he should consider it as his duty to deliver it into the hands
of the President of the United States, to be disposed of at the pleasure
of the Government.

Under these circumstances he left the Court of Madrid; and upon his
arrival in the United States, he found a casket of valuable female
ornaments addressed to Mrs. Humphreys, which, though unaccompanied by
any letter, he presumed to be a present from the Queen of Spain.
Doubting the propriety of accepting it under such circumstances, Mrs.
Humphreys presented the casket to the President of the United States,
who put it into the hands of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of
State declining to decide the constitutional question, whether Mr.
Humphreys could with propriety retain it, ordered it to be returned to
him for the purpose of being sent back to Spain, or otherwise disposed
of as he may think proper. Mr. Humphreys refused to receive it back on
such terms: it consequently remains with the chief clerk in the
Department of State, and Mr. H. now requests Congress to give orders for
sending it back to Spain, or for disposing of it in such other way as
they may think proper. He makes the same request respecting a sword
presented him by the Dey of Algiers, which is also in the hands of the
chief clerk of the Department of State, under similar circumstances.

The subject, after considerable conversation in the House, was referred
to a select committee to report their opinion thereon.

_French Spoliations._

Mr. MITCHILL called up his resolution respecting French depredations, as
follows:

      "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire by
      what means the value or amount of property taken from
      citizens of the United States by the French during the late
      war in Europe can be best ascertained, and the several
      sorts of captures distinguished and classed, and report
      thereon to this House, to the end that indemnification be
      made."

Mr. BAYARD offered an amendment, which was agreed to, striking out the
latter part of the resolution, and instructing the committee to report
their opinion whether indemnification shall be made.

After a very desultory debate on referring the resolution to a Committee
of the Whole, or to a select committee, and the rejection of a motion of
reference to a Committee of the Whole, the question was taken on the
resolution as amended, which was determined in the negative--ayes 34,
noes 39.

The House adjourned.


MONDAY, January 31.

Another member, to wit, JOHN FOWLER, from Kentucky, appeared, and took
his seat in the House.

_French Spoliations._

Mr. BAYARD observed that a resolution offered some days since by a
gentleman from New York, (Mr. MITCHILL,) of considerable national, and
of great individual importance to a large description of citizens,
appeared to him to have been disagreed to more from considerations of
form than substance; as the merits of the subject were not, on that
occasion, brought into discussion. In order to meet the ideas of
gentlemen who desired, in the first instance, to decide the principle
whether indemnity ought to be made to our merchants, he submitted the
following resolution:

      _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law, to
      indemnify the citizens of the United States who, in
      carrying on a lawful trade to foreign parts, suffered
      losses by the seizure of their property made by
      unauthorized French cruisers, or by any French cruiser,
      without sufficient cause, in violation of the rights of
      American commerce, during the late war between Great
      Britain and the French Republic, and whose claims for
      indemnity against the said Republic were renounced by the
      United States, by their acceptance of the ratification of
      the treaty lately made with France.

Mr. BAYARD moved the taking up the resolution for consideration; on
which the House divided--yeas 39, nays 45. Resolution ordered to lie on
the table.

About 3 o'clock the galleries were cleared, and the House remained with
closed doors till 4 o'clock, when they adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, February 2.

_French Spoliations._

Mr. HILL called for the order of the day on the bill to prohibit the
importation of certain persons, whose admission is prohibited by laws of
the States.

Mr. BAYARD requested the gentleman to waive his call for one moment, to
enable the House to take his resolution respecting French spoliations,
laid some days since on the table, into consideration for the sole
purpose of giving it a proper disposition. His object, some days since,
when he called it up, was to have it referred to a Committee of the
whole House, not to urge its discussion on that day. His object was now
the same, and his sole wish was that it should be referred, and a day
named for its consideration. As, however, said Mr. B., it may be voted
down now, as it then was, without any reasons being assigned, gentlemen
will excuse me for calling the yeas and nays. I hope gentlemen will so
far at least comply with the forms of justice as to suffer the case to
be considered, whatever may be their ultimate decision upon it.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he would ask the gentleman from Delaware, whether he
had seen any indisposition in that House to discuss the subject? For his
part he had seen none, either in the House or in any individual member.
He felt no objection to take up the subject at any time, and to discuss,
or rather to hear the gentleman from Delaware discuss it. He hoped,
therefore, the gentleman would not persist in taking up the time of the
House by calling the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAYARD said he had seen an indisposition in the House to discuss the
subject; and the reason why the gentleman from Virginia had not seen it
was, that he was not in his place on the day he had before moved that
the resolution should be taken up. Had he been in his place, he would
have seen that a motion to take it into consideration had been rejected
without a single reason being assigned. But under the assurance of the
gentleman, that there was no aversion to consider the subject, he would
waive his call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he spoke only for himself.

Mr. BAYARD replied that he then persisted in the call.

The yeas and nays were then taken on taking up the resolution; and
were--yeas 65, nays 26.

The resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole without
opposition.

When Mr. BAYARD moved that it be made the order for Monday next.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS moved the 3d of March.

Mr. GREGG thought it was best to take the resolution up fairly and
decide it at once.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS said he was willing to meet it fairly, but he thought
one day sufficient for the investigation.

Mr. HUGER had no hesitation in saying this was a question of great
moment, and one well worthy of the deliberate attention of the House. To
be sure, if there was a great press of important business, he would
acquiesce in its postponement. But this was not the case. There was no
business before the House of pressing importance. He was in favor of a
fair and full investigation of the subject. The motion to make it the
order of the day for the last day of the session, when the press of
other business would absolutely preclude any attention to it, was
tantamount to a refusal of all investigation whatever. Unless the motion
was withdrawn, he would, therefore, call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BACON said his mind preponderated against the claim. But to him it
appeared that a postponement to such a day, would be the same as
declaring the claim should not be attended to. If the claim should be
sustained by the vote of the House, it would surely require more than
one day to make the necessary arrangements for carrying it into the
shape of a law.

Mr. BAYARD.--No doubt the observation of the gentleman from
Massachusetts is correct, that a postponement to the last day of the
session is, in effect, precisely the same as to reject the claim
altogether. Gentlemen ought to consider that our sole object is to bring
into discussion the claims of our citizens. I do not undertake to
express any opinion of the validity of the claims. No member on the
floor is less personally or locally interested than I am. But I do think
that no claim whatever, of the meanest nature, should be decided upon
until the party is heard. Many of our citizens, who have incurred
losses, suppose they have an equitable claim on the Government. The
claims have been announced in the public papers, and in petitions on
the files of this House. Is it then for this House to say they will not
attend to the petitions of our citizens? For what do we ask? Simply for
a discussion, and that a decision shall not be made until those who
consider themselves aggrieved shall be heard. Are gentlemen unwilling to
trust themselves, lest their own consciences should compel them to an
act of justice? But I will abstain from going into the merits of the
subject. I will only repeat that there is no petition, however
worthless, but the House pays it a decent respect, by referring it, and
allowing time for its examination. Will they then, in a case of such
magnitude as this, where there are so many claims, so variously
characterized, will they refuse this ordinary measure of respect? I will
expect a different decision from the justice and candor of the House.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS said he would withdraw his motion, and move that the
subject be made the order of the day, for the first day of March, which
would allow sufficient time for a full and fair investigation.

Mr. SMILIE did not know what the gentleman from Delaware meant, when he
said we were not willing to trust our consciences. He hoped every
gentleman had as good a conscience as the gentleman himself. For his own
part, if there was time to discuss this subject, he would be willing to
hear it discussed, and it would then appear who brought the merchants
into their misfortunes, and who occasioned their losses. But, as he
believed there was not now time, he thought it best to postpone the
consideration of the subject until the next session, when it would fully
appear who had been the friends, and who the enemies of our merchants.
In the mean time he would only add that he would never be one of those
who would consent to tax the agricultural interests of the country to
pay the merchants.

Mr. RUTLEDGE observed that it was important that our merchants should be
extricated from their present embarrassments. They wish to know the
disposition of Congress on their claims. This cannot be done if the
present motion obtain; for the subject, in that event, will be disposed
of this session precisely as it was the last. It was then referred, at
an early period, to a committee with whom it slept until near the close
of the session, when a report, merely of facts, was made. The report was
then made at a late day of the session, and the House never took it up.
It is now proposed to be postponed until a very late day of this
session, and it will then not be taken up.

Whatever the opinions of some gentlemen may be, it is a fact that many
honorable and unfortunate merchants are now struggling with their
misfortunes, produced by French spoliations, whom the hope of relief
from Government has saved from ruin. They wish to know their fate, and
no longer to be kept in suspense. Let their claims then be decided at
once; and if gentlemen are ready to say they shall not be indemnified
for losses, which, but for the renunciation of the treaty, they would
have been indemnified for by France, let them say so. It is known that
France would have indemnified for these losses, but for the treaty. The
most respectable letters have been received from France to this effect;
and Mr. R. said the fact was within his own personal knowledge. Under
these circumstances the claims ought to be taken up and decided upon
speedily. If the gentlemen were serious in naming so late a day, the
House must be troubled with the calling of the yeas and nays; as it was
impossible to expect that any thing that would be effectual could be
done after the first of March, as all the measures adopted by the House
required the concurrence of the Senate and the details of a law.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS said he never permitted himself to propose any thing to
that House in which he was not serious. He was serious in his belief
that if his motion should be adopted there would be full time allowed
for an investigation of the subject. He was in favor of the distant day
he had named, inasmuch as he was convinced that it would protect the
House from the unnecessary consumption of a great deal of time, and
which, if taken up now, would interfere with the transaction of much
important business. Full time would still be allowed to decide the
question of indemnity. He did not know that more was required this
session by any body. He had not heard any member say that a law would be
necessary this session. All that was required was a decision preparatory
to a law. In his opinion this was an improper time to discuss the merits
of the subject; he should, therefore, make no reply to observations of
this nature, which, he thought, had been improperly offered at this
stage of the business.

Mr. BAYARD said he had not fallen into the same mistake with his
honorable friend from South Carolina, in considering the gentleman from
North Carolina in earnest in the motion he had made. He had not thought
him serious, as the day named by him was so late as not to allow time
sufficient for a fair discussion. The gentleman was not a new member,
and his experience could tell him how imperiously the House were
occupied, during the last two or three days of its sitting, in detail
indispensably necessary to complete business already begun. He had
seldom known the close of a session, when it had not been necessary to
sit on Sunday or till midnight. How then could it be expected that, at
such a period, even the semblance of justice could be done to the
subject? Whereas, if it were earlier attended to, they might consult
their own convenience. If it happened, as had heretofore been the case,
that they had more time than they knew what to do with, a much earlier
day could be fixed on. But should the subject be postponed till the
first day of March, it might be said, if the House should not then go
into committee on it, that a day so late had been named with a view of
deferring the subject to the next session. While, if the House, actuated
by magnanimity and justice, shall go into its consideration, it would
put it in the power of a minority, or even a few members, to prevent the
transaction of other important business. Mr. B. said he would not pledge
himself; but he rather thought the subject could be discussed in the
course of one day.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania had mistaken him on the point of
conscience. This was not astonishing, as that gentleman often made
mistakes. He had said nothing about the conscience of that gentleman, as
he knew nothing about it. He was asked whether gentlemen were unwilling
to trust themselves, lest their own consciences should compel them to do
an act of justice. This was all he had said, and it had not been said
with any view to impeach the conscience of any gentleman on the subject.

Mr. BACON hoped this business would be so conducted as to show a
disposition on the part of the House to meet these claims on honorable
and fair principles, and so as to manifest no indisposition to a fair
and full discussion. It was undoubtedly a serious question. There
were a number of respectable characters interested in the
decision--respectable, because citizens of the United States. He hoped
their claims would be treated with all the candor and liberality they
had a right to expect. He apprehended that two or three days were not
sufficient, amidst the crowd of other business at the end of a session,
for a fair and full examination. He should, therefore, vote against the
motion.

Mr. DAWSON hoped the motion would prevail. A resolution in a great
measure similar to that now proposed by the gentleman from Delaware had
been offered some time since by a gentleman from New York. It was moved
to refer that motion to a Committee of the Whole and negatived;
afterwards a motion was made to refer it to a select committee, which
was also negatived. He did conclude, from these decisions, that a
majority of the House were not disposed to discuss the merits of the
question this session. He believed this was still the sentiment of the
majority, who considered the subject as not yet ripe for decision. He,
therefore, thought the taking it up at an early day would only serve to
waste time.

Mr. GREGG said, that so far as his mind was made up, he was against the
claim; but he was, notwithstanding, in favor of a full discussion of it.
The subject had been attended to. The committee appointed last session
had gone into a laborious investigation of it; and had made a report
containing very important statements and facts. He wished the
consideration to be so far delayed, as to allow time for the printing of
this report. He was against a postponement to the first day of March;
but thought the second Monday in February would answer.

Mr. THATCHER said he felt gratified at the House manifesting more
liberality in giving an opportunity now to discuss the subject than had
been manifested before. Attempts made during the last session to
discuss the subject had ended in nothing. This session, when the
gentleman from New York (Mr. MITCHILL) had offered a resolution, it had
been negatived. The motion of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD)
to take up the present resolution had also been negatived. But now a
considerable majority were for taking it into consideration. He was,
however, surprised at the motions for making the consideration of the
subject the order of the day for the first and third of March, as they
would in effect frustrate all discussion, from the press of other
business. The subject was of infinite importance; millions depend upon
the decision. The merchants were anxious to know the result. A state of
suspense was, of all states, most painful to them. Why then put off the
decision of a claim in his opinion just, and to which the House ought
not to shut their ears?

Mr. EUSTIS said, whatever may have been the intention of the mover to
postpone to the first of March, and of the intentions of gentlemen on
this or any other occasion, he had no disposition to inquire--the
tendency of the postponement will be to preclude a deliberate
discussion. Those more conversant with the course of business knew,
better than he did, the pressure of business which necessarily crowded
the last days of a session; and he was more averse to the motion from
the avowal of an honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. DAWSON,) who
had risen to support the motion, and avowed his principal reason to be a
conviction that the present Congress ought not to take any decisive
measures on the subject of the claims. He differed widely from that
gentleman. Independently of the magnitude and extent of these claims,
and of the situation of those concerned, the House were called upon by a
sense of public duty to bestow upon them a cool and deliberate
consideration, which on ordinary occasions was extended to applications
of an individual and inferior nature. The common course of business
brings this subject to view. It will be recollected that, at the last
session of Congress, the memorials of the claimants were referred to the
consideration of a select committee. That committee reported a state of
facts, and closed their report with the following words:

      "Upon the whole view of the case, the committee submit it
      to the House, to determine whether the Government of the
      United States are in any respect bound to indemnify the
      memorialists; and whether there be any ground for
      discrimination between the cases of losses sustained before
      the acts of the 28th of May, 1798, the 7th of July, 1798,
      and the 9th of July, 1798; and cases of losses sustained
      after those periods."

From the late day of the session in which this report was made, no order
was taken on it, no discussion was had. By this part of the report facts
are offered for consideration; data are furnished; a discrimination, in
point of time, and of course in point of merit, is made; and the final
determination is submitted to the House.

A sense of justice to the memorialists and a strong sense of public duty
require that we meet the question and come to a decision. Those who
appear already to have judged the question may possibly see in the
statements which have been made, and the arguments by which the claim
will be supported, reasons to alter their opinions. In any event, and
especially after a discussion, in case of an adherence to those opinions
they appear already to have formed, if they fail to produce conviction
on others, the reasons on which they ground those opinions may be useful
to the House, and will accompany and justify the vote they shall finally
give. When the question shall be decided (and I hope it will be in favor
of an earlier day than that moved for) I shall move that the report of
the committee of the last winter shall be referred to the Committee of
the Whole, together with the resolution under consideration. It will be
also proper at that time to give a second reading to the memorials which
have been presented--the grounds on which they rest their claim will be
brought again into view, and by giving them a free discussion and
consideration we shall be better enabled to come to a just decision.
These claims, like conscience, are of no party; the misfortune has been
indiscriminate, and it is to be expected the final determination will be
just.

Mr. HOLLAND advocated a full discussion, and the assignment of an early
day.

When the yeas and nays were taken, on making it the order of the day for
the first of March, and it was decided in the negative--yeas 18, nays
74.

On motion of Mr. BAYARD it was made the order for the second Monday in
February.


THURSDAY, February 3.

_Amy Dardin's Claim._

A petition of Amy Dardin, of the county of Mecklenburg, in the State of
Virginia, widow and relict of David Dardin, deceased, was presented to
the House and read, praying compensation for the value of a stud horse,
called Romulus, the property of the deceased, which was impressed into
the service of the Southern army under the command of Major General
Greene, by order of James Gunn, captain in a regiment of Continental
cavalry, some time in the month of July, one thousand seven hundred and
eighty-one. Referred to the Committee of Claims.


TUESDAY, February 8.

_District of Columbia._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the following
resolutions, offered by Mr. BACON:

      "_Resolved_, That it is expedient for Congress to recede to
      the State of Virginia the jurisdiction of that part of the
      Territory of Columbia, which was ceded to the United
      States by the said State of Virginia, by an act passed the
      third day of December in the year 1789, entitled, "An act
      for the cession of ten miles square, or any lesser quantity
      of territory, within this State, to the United States in
      Congress assembled, for the permanent seat of the General
      Government." _Provided_, the said State of Virginia shall
      consent and agree thereto.

      "_Resolved_, That it is expedient for Congress to recede to
      the State of Maryland the jurisdiction of that part of
      Columbia which was ceded to the United States by the said
      State of Maryland, by an act passed the 19th day of
      December, in the year 1791, entitled "An act concerning the
      Territory of Columbia and the City of Washington:"
      _Provided_, That said State of Maryland shall consent and
      agree thereto."

The first resolution being read,

Mr. SMILIE said it was not his wish to take up the time of the House,
but barely to assign, in a few words, his reasons for the vote he should
give. In the last Congress he had voted against the assumption, and he
had heard no reasons since to change his opinion on the propriety of
that vote. He should, therefore, vote now for a retrocession. He never
could understand the reason for giving Congress an exclusive
jurisdiction over ten miles square. He believed there was but one
reason: It had been thought good policy to introduce this article into
the constitution to facilitate its adoption, as it was known that all
parts of the Union were anxious to have the seat of Government. It did
not appear to him, in any proper point of view, necessary that Congress
should possess such exclusive jurisdiction. There was no doubt that, let
Congress sit where they would, they would always have sufficient power
to protect themselves. Unfortunately, however, there was on this subject
an association of ideas in the minds of many persons, not in the least
connected, which was, that the residence of Congress in this place, and
their possessing exclusive jurisdiction, was the same thing. If the
exercise of exclusive jurisdiction could have any effect on his mind, as
to the other point, it would be directly opposite, as he would much
rather sit here without than with exclusive jurisdiction, as we cannot
possess this authority without depriving the citizens of rights which
were the most dear to them. When he looked around him, and saw no man,
unless a stranger, who was not a political slave, he felt the most
painful sensations. Under our exercise of exclusive jurisdiction the
citizens here are deprived of all political rights, nor can we confer
them. If Congress can derive no solid benefit from the exercise of this
power, why keep the people in this degraded situation? It is true, this
place may be settled by foreigners; but can we suppose that any native
citizen, who values his political rights, will come here? For the honor
of the country, he must suppose there would be none. Why not then
restore the people to their former condition? Mr. S. concluded by
declaring that the act of retrocession would have no effect upon his
mind as to staying here.

Mr. BACON said he would state, in a few words, the reasons that
influenced him in submitting these resolutions. In the first place, he
knew of no advantage which the United States derived from retaining the
exclusive jurisdiction of the District. Therefore, if the States to
which it originally belonged were disposed to take it back, there could
be no objection derived from this consideration. In the second place, it
appeared, from their short experience, that the exercise of exclusive
legislation would take up a great deal of time, and produce a great
expense to the nation; and it was probable that, in the course of
events, the trouble and expense would increase with the increasing
number of the inhabitants. Should justice be done to the exercise of
this power, it was likely that as much time would be spent in
legislating for this District as for the whole United States. It was
certain that very considerable time would be consumed. They would
likewise be subjected to other expenses than those attendant on
legislation. In the next place, the Government would be very diverse
from that in the other parts of the Union. He would rather see the
Government in the United States uniform. Here the citizens would be
governed by laws, in the making of which they have no voice--by laws not
made with their own consent, but by the United States for them--by men
who have not the interest in the laws made that legislators ought always
to possess--by men also not acquainted with the minute and local
interests of the place, coming, as they did, from distances of 500 to
1,000 miles. From these considerations, he inferred their incompetency
to legislate for this District, whatever their disposition might be.
These were the principal reasons that influenced his mind. They might
however, perhaps, be easily obviated by the reasons of other gentlemen,
which he would be glad to hear.

Mr. HUGER was opposed to the resolutions, first, because he was not
inclined hastily to make alterations in the great national compact that
held us together. It appeared to him that, though they might not always
understand the reasons on which a part of it was founded, yet it was
prudent not to change it until experience had clearly proved its
inconvenience. It must be obvious that it was easier to perceive its
present inconvenience than to foresee the effects that may ensue from a
change. The constitution contemplates the exercise by Congress of
exclusive legislation over ten miles square. It must impress itself upon
the mind of every gentleman that the wise men who framed the
constitution deemed it proper. Congress also had thought it proper, as
well as two of the most respectable States in the Union--the one by
receiving and the other by granting the territory. All these
considerations impressed his mind with a disinclination hastily to alter
the course that had been pursued.

Mr. DENNIS regretted that he had been called out of the House when this
subject was taken up, as, in the remarks which he considered it his duty
to make, he could not avail himself of the ideas suggested by other
gentlemen, and as he might repeat what had been perhaps already said. He
would undertake, however, to show that the proposed resolutions were
objectionable in every point of view that could be taken of them. They
presented two aspects. Admitting, in the first place, that they could be
carried into effect, so far as to restore the people of the territory to
the situation in which they were placed before the cession, yet it
appeared to him a strong objection that all the advantages of exclusive
jurisdiction would be thereby lost. He had always thought that part of
the constitution which gave Congress exclusive jurisdiction over a
district of ten miles square wise and proper, and that a government
whose laws were to pervade the whole United States ought not to be
subjected to the whim or caprice of any part of the United States.

By exclusive legislation, he understood the exclusion to the States of
all participation in legislation. He admitted that it was competent to
Congress to sanction the acts of Maryland and Virginia; but he believed
that no one would contend that Congress could divest themselves of an
ultimate control. They might admit the Legislatures of Maryland and
Virginia to legislate for the territory, but Congress possessed the
power of controlling or modifying their acts. He would wish to know what
advantage there could be in giving this legislative agency to those
States? If given, no doubt could be entertained of many acts passed by
them being disagreeable to the people of the territory, who would apply
to Congress to repeal them. The next Congress, too, would have the power
of resuming the jurisdiction, or, more properly speaking, the
jurisdiction would still remain in Congress. Under such a qualified
cession, he presumed the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland would
refuse to act; for, why should they legislate for people not within
their limits? The power of legislation might as well be vested in the
Legislature of Massachusetts. The truth is, that our jurisdiction would
be paramount, and the acts of Maryland and Virginia would go into
operation merely by our permission, and Congress might repeal and amend
them whenever and howsoever they pleased. We should, therefore, be then
relieved from no trouble that we now experience. There would then be as
many applications to pass laws as there are now.

In another point of view he was astonished at these propositions, and at
the quarter from which they came. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
BACON) has told us that his resolutions are bottomed on the broad basis
of the rights of man; but he would ask how this could be, when the
resolutions went to transfer twenty thousand men, without their consent,
to a Government different from that under which they now live? Gentlemen
are going to imitate some of the extraordinary scenes that have lately
occurred in Europe, and propose to transfer this District with the same
facility that in that quarter of the globe they have transferred an
Italian dukedom or a German principality.

Mr. DENNIS thought the situation of Congress in relation to the people
of this Territory was not sufficiently understood. He knew that it was
always troublesome to legislate for any people: he foresaw these
inconveniences when they removed to this place. He had thought then, as
he thought now, that some legislative government must be provided for
the District. In this opinion he had never varied, but had, from
successive events, become more confirmed in its accuracy. But, if
gentlemen object to vesting the people with the power of government, he
thought he could suggest a plan better than that of retrocession, to
wit: to vest the President with the power to revise the laws of Maryland
and Virginia, and make a report to the next session of Congress. The
laws of Maryland and Virginia were generally agreeable to the people,
but they experienced many inconveniences from local and peculiar
circumstances.


WEDNESDAY, February 9.

_District of Columbia._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
resolutions of Mr. BACON to recede to the States of Maryland and
Virginia the District of Columbia.

Mr. BAYARD hoped the committee would not agree to the resolutions. He
did not believe that a constitutional power existed enabling the
Government of the United States to recede the Territory. The Territory
had been acquired by the direction and under the permission of the
constitution. The constitution also allows the cession by particular
States. When, therefore, gentlemen say Congress has the power to recede,
he was at liberty to call upon them to exhibit that part of the
constitution that conferred the power. He had looked over the
constitution with a vigilant eye, and he could see nothing to this
effect. Can it be done without power? Do gentlemen recollect that the
Government of the United States is federative, and of course possessed
of limited powers; and what is not delegated does not exist; and that
there is an express provision that powers not expressly given shall not
be assumed by implication? It was difficult to point out a non-entity.
If gentlemen contend for an entity, they should distinguish it. If
Congress have the power to recede this Territory, they have also the
power to recede the others, the Indiana and Mississippi Territories. It
is an extremely different thing to receive a cession and to recede it
after it is received. Congress has the power to do the one, but not the
other. How can the retrocession be made? Gentlemen say, by law. That law
may be repealed. If receded, what would be the situation of the
Territory? It could be no affair of contract. For a contract cannot
exist without a consideration. Though, on the cession, there was a
consideration, in receding there would be none. Would there be a power
in Virginia and Maryland, if receded, to prevent a resumption? Such a
measure showed but little respect for the people of the Territory. As
far as he knew the sentiments of the people, it was not their wish to be
receded. They were willing to live under the protection of Congress. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania has called them slaves. They may not thank
him for the appellation. If they were slaves, there must be some
corollary; and if so, we must be their tyrants. But they are not slaves;
they are children, over whom it is not our wish to tyrannize, but whom
we would foster and nurture. Are we, in the character of Representatives
of the United States, to be considered as their tyrants, because they
are not immediately represented here? We ought not to decide this
question until the people express their desire to return to the States.

But there is a more serious consideration relative to the people of the
Territory. It is proposed to recede the District to Maryland and
Virginia. Once take that step, and what obligation was there in Congress
to remain here? He felt there was none. The obligation to remain arises,
in a great measure, from the cession, and by destroying that, you
extinguish the sense of the obligation to stay. This may be the object
of gentlemen. A number of the measures lately proposed appeared to have
that tendency. One motion had been made to concentrate the public
buildings. Violate one stipulation of the Government, or disappoint a
reasonable expectation that had been excited by the measures of the
Government, and the ruin of hundreds follows. Now, a motion is made to
recede. Combine these two operations. Unfix the Capitol, and recede the
District, and, believe me, Congress will soon take wings and fly to some
other place. It had been truly remarked, on a similar occasion, by those
interested, though these things may be sport to you, they are death to
us. Not a motion of this kind had been made, or could be made, that did
not depreciate the interests of the place, and frustrate the object
professed. By such means, our accommodations will be impaired, all
enterprise be subdued, and industry languish. He hoped, therefore, that
the House, by a decided vote, would reject these resolutions, and put
all similar ones to sleep.

Mr. GREGG said he had expected that this question would have been
decided by a silent vote. He, for his part, had no intention of having
troubled the committee with any observations of his on the subject, but
as other gentlemen had seen proper to enter into a discussion of it, he
would beg the indulgence of the committee while he assigned, as
concisely as possible, the reasons that would influence his vote. Having
been a member of the Legislature at the time the act was passed for
assuming the jurisdiction of the Territory, he foresaw pretty clearly
most of the difficulties in which we are now involved by that act, and
therefore had given it his opposition in every stage of its passage. A
majority of the Legislature, however, at that time, entertained a
different opinion, and made the assumption. From that moment he had
considered a contract to be fully complete and ratified between the
States of Maryland, Virginia, the people of the Territory of Columbia,
and the Government of the United States. That contract he considered as
of permanent obligation, not to be done away, but by the unanimous
consent of all the parties.

Mr. SMILIE could not agree either with the gentleman from Delaware or
with his colleague (Mr. GREGG) on the constitutional question. We had a
power to accept the cession, or not to accept it; from which necessarily
resulted the power of recession. Instead of arguing as the gentleman
from Delaware, he would call on him to point out in the constitution the
prohibition. His colleague talked of a moral obligation to keep the
Territory. This might exist, if it were proposed to force this Territory
on the States without their consent. The gentleman seems to have taken
offence at the expression which had fallen from him of slaves. For his
part, he had never been accustomed to courtly language, but to the
expression of his ideas plainly and openly as he conceived them. He
certainly had not used the expression with any intention to treat the
people of this Territory with disrespect; but to express his regret at
the degraded situation of those who were formerly in possession of the
full rights of citizenship. The gentleman seems also offended at the
epithet of tyrants applied to us.

Mr. S. would ask the gentleman from Delaware, if ever he knew a
government possessed of unlimited power, who had not abused it. This was
the condition of this Government, which he hoped, however, if continued,
would be moderate. He had expected that gentlemen opposed to the
retrocession would have shown the benefit to be derived to the United
States from retaining the jurisdiction. If there were none, it was
useless and dangerous, inasmuch as it could only be done at the expense
of the rights of the people. He was surprised yesterday at the remarks
of the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. DENNIS,) that this measure would
deprive twenty thousand people of their rights. How could this be, when
they had no right to be deprived of? You may give them a charter. But of
what avail will this be, when Congress may take it away at any moment?
They would continue for ever to be ultimately governed by a body over
whom they had no control. Mr. S. concluded by again observing that he
had always thought the assumption wrong; but that he had no idea of
connecting that consideration with the removal of the Government. It
could have no influence on his mind. He would go farther, and say that
he had no idea of removing; nor did he believe they could remove.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that, whatever reasons might be advanced on the ground
of expediency against the adoption of the resolution, he wished to say
a few words on the constitutional objections which had been offered to
them. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD) told us, on a very late
occasion, that the power to create involved the power to destroy; and
although I may not be willing to adopt this maxim in all the latitude in
which it was urged by that gentleman, I have no hesitation in averring
my belief that Congress possess the right, with the assent of these
States, respectively, to cede the several portions of this territory to
Maryland and Virginia. Nor, in my opinion, does this doctrine militate
against that construction of the constitution, which regards that
instrument in the light of a limited grant of power. In this
construction I heartily concur with the gentleman from Delaware, or
rather, if he will permit me to say so, I am glad to find he agrees with
me, as I have retained my opinion, whilst he seems to have changed his.
I readily admit that Congress possesses no power but that which is
devolved on them by the constitution, explicitly, or which is evidently
included in, or deducible from its plain provisions. The constitution
nowhere gives Congress the express power of repealing laws; but the
repeal of laws is essentially connected with the power of passing them,
as, in this case, the right to recede is involved in the right to accept
the cession. The parties to this compact are the United States, of the
one part, and the States of Maryland and Virginia, of the other. We
speak the voice of the United States, and, among others, of Maryland and
Virginia, in their confederate capacity. The Legislatures of those
States answer for them in their individual capacity. If all these
parties are agreed to revoke their act, I wish to know who is to dissent
to it, or what obstacle can prevent its being rescinded?

Mr. R. said, that he was of the number of those who voted against
assuming the jurisdiction of this territory. He did it from a
predilection for those principles in which the American Revolution
originated; from the firm belief that men ought not to be bound by laws
in whose formation they had no influence. It was the violation of that
principle, and not the extent to which it was carried, which laid the
foundation of our independence. For, let it be remembered that the
demand of Great Britain went only to a peppercorn; but that we disdained
the admission of so odious a doctrine, and commenced a determined and
successful resistance. But it is denied that this territory is in a
state of slavery, because, says the gentleman, it implies that we are
tyrants. The term slavery, sir, excites in the mind of man an odious
idea. There are, however, various species of this wretched condition.
Domestic slavery, of all others the most oppressive; and political
slavery, which has been well defined to be that state in which any
community is divested of the power of self-government, and regulated by
laws to which its assent is not required, and may not be given. Nor have
I ever before understood that slavery, particularly of the last
description, necessarily implied tyranny, although it too frequently is
productive of it. But, so far from being slaves, the people within this
territory are, it seems, our children, who are to experience every
indulgence at our hands. Sir, the form of government, such as has been
described, however mild and beneficent it may be in its administration,
places those subjected to it in a state of political slavery, and they
are as completely divested of self-control as the infant who is dandled
on the knee of its parent. As to the existence, then, of this species of
slavery, it mattered not whether the people within the limits of this
District were regarded as the favorite son, and feasted on the fatted
calf, or were exposed to the cruel rigor of a step-mother.

An idea had been held out from a very respectable quarter that this
District might, in time, become a State. As to Congress, what difference
will they find between being under the jurisdiction of the State of
Columbia, or the State of Maryland. But, if this objection were removed,
it is impossible that this territory can become a State. The other
States can never be brought to consent that two Senators and, at least,
three electors of President, shall be chosen out of this small spot, and
by a handful of men.

The constitution seems to have intended, by its provision on this
subject, to guard the General Government against the undue influence of
any particular States wherein it might sit. An insurrection in
Philadelphia is mentioned by some gentleman as having given rise to this
clause in the constitution. The constitution, no doubt, had a wise end
in view, but it has failed in the means of attaining it. No man has a
higher respect than myself for the talents of the framers of that
instrument. But let it be remembered, that they were making a great
experiment, and to have failed in but a single object, is the highest
proof of their wisdom. The physical force of this small District would
prove but a poor defence against the aggression of large and powerful
States. Happily, our security is more amply provided for; it results
from the command which has been given us over the sword and the purse of
the Union. Our protection is not in a mathematical line--which would
oppose but a feeble resistance to an invading foe. But let gentlemen ask
themselves, why the inhabitants of this District should be less
formidable if disposed to insurrection because under our own
jurisdiction? Look at Paris! was the insurrection of the fourteenth of
July, which humbled into the dust the ancient monarchy of France, the
effect of a want of jurisdiction; of a want of power in the Government
over the lives and fortunes of the people? Did the city afford the
Government a defence? No, it was in insurrection. Did the military send
its aid? On the contrary, it joined the insurgents. What was the fact
at Philadelphia? That Congress was insulted by its own troops. Would the
civil jurisdiction of the town have repelled the bayonet? No, it was not
in parchment to afford this defence. It has left us an awful lesson
against standing armies; and if we shall ever be so infatuated as to
multiply armies about us, we may rely in vain on the lines of
circumvallation which the limits of our exclusive jurisdiction form. The
constitution, therefore, has failed in its endeavor to give to Congress
any other security than that which public opinion and the command of the
national resources afford.

But, whilst I have no doubt on the subject of our constitutional right,
I am opposed to the resolution on the ground of expediency. It appears
to have disseminated a great alarm among the people of our immediate
neighborhood. At a proper time, when great unanimity can be obtained, it
may be carried into effect. If now passed, it is irrevocable; and I have
no indisposition to give the question the most mature deliberation, and
to give it a fair operation on the public mind. I could wish, indeed, to
see the people within this District restored to their rights. Men in
such a situation are, as it had been wisely and eloquently said, fit
instruments to enslave their fellow-men. This species of Government is
an experiment how far freemen can be reconciled to live without rights;
an experiment dangerous to the liberties of these States. But, inasmuch
as it has been already made, inasmuch as I was not accessory to it, and
as, at some future time, its deleterious effects may be arrested, I am
disposed to vote against the resolutions. I view them as a fatal present
to this House, although I respect the motives in which I believe them to
have originated; as tending to disunite those who ought ever to act in
concert; and I have no hesitation on a question of expediency to declare
my disposition to concede something to the wishes and fears of those
around me. In their present shape, at least, I shall therefore vote
against the resolutions.

Mr. EUSTIS was opposed to the resolutions, for the reasons which had
been stated, and for other reasons not mentioned, though they might have
occurred to the minds of gentlemen. He thought it right to express a
difference of opinion with the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,)
on an important question, the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress to the
ten miles square. He was not prepared to pronounce the provision of the
constitution on this subject deficient or unwise. It rather appeared to
him to be founded in the nature of the Government. A Government on
parchment, and without force, was no Government at all. It had been
stated this provision grew out of a transaction at Philadelphia, and
asked what dependence was to be placed on a military force when that
force was itself the aggressor? But that transaction suggested a
different result. Had the militia been well equipped and ready for
service, and under the immediate control of Congress, would the military
force have been suffered to overawe them? This very case furnished an
argument for investing Congress with the complete command of the militia
force of the territory, to screen them from insult, and to protect them
from the application of force that might destroy deliberation. They had
already taken a course calculated to prove the soundness of this mode of
protection. Their laws had recognized the militia of the territory; and
some measures had been taken to organize them. The militia was the
physical force Congress must rely on. Suppose that militia were under
the command of Maryland, and Congress was about to pass a law obnoxious
to that State. Suppose the militia of Maryland to be mutinous, and to
surround these walls. Must you resort to Maryland for protection, and
wait on her measures? No; the situation of the territory and your
immediate power over the militia must furnish you with the means of
protection. He therefore thought it one of the best provisions of the
constitution, to submit the physical force near the Government to its
direction.

Mr. SOUTHARD rose only to make one observation, which had been touched
on but lightly in the course of the debate. It appeared to him that when
Congress assumed the exclusive jurisdiction of the ten miles square,
they had, in the first instance, entered into a contract with the
Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland. He had no doubt that, if the
contract had ended here, they might, with their consent, make a
retrocession. The second step, however, taken, was a contract between
the agents of Government and the proprietors, in order to obtain the
soil. This contract appeared to him to be solemn and binding. In
entering into the contract, the proprietors gave the General Government
sites for the public buildings, and half the residue of the land within
the city plot. He conceived that this was a contract founded on express
stipulations that Congress should exercise exclusive jurisdiction. The
proprietors had no idea, at the time they made the contract, that their
property would be retroceded and the Government had since received more
than one million's worth of real property which they now enjoyed. He
would ask, whether a retrocession, under such circumstances, would not
have a retrospective effect, and impair those obligations which the
United States were bound to observe? For this reason, he thought a
retrocession improper, as it would be a violation of contract with the
people of the territory. It appeared to him that, while they were
satisfied, the General Government ought to be satisfied.

Mr. VARNUM doubted the reality of the observation of the gentleman from
New Jersey. He suspected there was no such contract in existence. It was
not the interest of the Government of the United States to do any thing
that would injure this District. He therefore supposed that every
gentleman who voted on this occasion, would act for the interest of his
country. If he thought it possible for Congress to legislate for the
territory, he should have no objection to retaining the jurisdiction.
But, when he considered that Congress were appointed to legislate on
great objects, and not on minute local concerns, he did not think them
competent to legislate for the persons situated in the Territory of
Columbia. He did not know whether, if the jurisdiction was retained, it
would not be proper to indulge the citizens with a territorial
legislature. But to this the people themselves object. Virginia objects
to a union with Maryland. There were, manifestly, hostile interests
which could not easily be united. And if there shall be a territorial
legislature, still Congress has a right over their acts. Whether this
was the fit time to retrocede the territory he did not know; but he
believed the time would come when the citizens of the territory will be
in favor of it.

Mr. SMILIE stated the circumstances of the case at Philadelphia, which
had been so often alluded to by gentlemen. At the close of the late war
there had been a mutiny among the troops, who had surrounded Congress.
Not a drop of blood had, however, been spilt. This was the mighty
incident of which so liberal a use had been made. He would ask whether,
in countries over which the Government had complete jurisdiction, worse
things had not happened? He would ask, whether this menace of Congress
were to be compared with the mob of Lord George Gordon in a country over
which the Government had an entire jurisdiction.

The question was then taken on the first resolution, for receding to
Virginia the territory originally attached to that State, and lost--ayes
22.

When the question was taken on the second resolution, and lost, without
a division.

The committee rose, and reported their disagreement to the resolutions.

The House immediately took up their report.

Mr. NICHOLSON called for the yeas and nays.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, as he believed the House incompetent to legislate for
the people of Columbia; as he believed the interests of the several
parts of the territory were as hostile as any in the Union, as it was
manifest there was an Alexandria, a Georgetown, and a city interest; and
even, within the city, a Capitol-hill interest, and a President's-house
interest--which were irreconcilable; he should vote for the amendment of
his colleague, (Mr. DAWSON.) To attempt to legislate for the District
was, in effect, to constitute the chairman of the committee, or, at any
rate, the committee itself on the affairs of the territory, the Solon or
Lycurgus of the place. It was well known that the indolence of the other
members, or their indifference, inseparable from the situation in which
they were placed, would prevent Congress from legislating with a full
understanding of the objects before them. He, therefore, thought it
expedient to retrocede all the territory, excepting the City of
Washington. This disposition of the territory would leave entirely
untouched the question which arose from the interest of individuals who
had made purchases of property under the faith of Congress retaining the
jurisdiction. It was probable that, in such event, a corporation might
be established in the city that would answer the ends of Government,
without two-thirds of the time of the National Legislature being
consumed.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on concurring with the
Committee of the Whole, in their disagreement to the first resolution,
and carried--yeas 66, nays 26, as follows:

      YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude,
      Richard Brent, Robert Brown, John Campbell, John Clopton,
      John Condit, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John
      Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, William Dickson, Peter Early,
      William Eustis, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray,
      Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A.
      Hanna, Daniel Heister, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill,
      Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, David Holmes,
      Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, George Jackson, William Jones,
      Ebenezer Mattoon, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill,
      Thomas Moore, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Anthony New,
      Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, Elias Perkins,
      Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shepard,
      Israel Smith, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,)
      Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, John Stanley, John Stewart,
      John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher,
      Thomas Tillinghast, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John
      Trigg, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg
      Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Phanuel
      Bishop, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne,
      Matthew Clay, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph,
      Ebenezer Elmer, John Fowler, William Hoge, James Holland,
      Michael Leib, James Mott, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie,
      John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Richard Stanford,
      David Thomas, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert
      Williams.

The second and last resolution to which the Committee of the Whole
reported their disagreement, being twice read, in the words following,
to wit:

      _Resolved_, That it is expedient for Congress to recede to
      the State of Maryland the jurisdiction of that part of the
      Territory of Columbia, which was ceded to the United States
      by the said State of Maryland, by an act passed the
      nineteenth day of December, in the year one thousand seven
      hundred and ninety-one, entitled "An act concerning the
      Territory of Columbia and the City of Washington;" provided
      the said State of Maryland shall consent and agree thereto:

The question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of
the Whole in their disagreement to the same, and resolved in the
affirmative.[77]


THURSDAY, February 10.

_Ohio School Fund._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of
the committee of the second instant, to whom were referred, on the
twenty-third of December last, a letter from Edward Tiffin, President of
the Convention of Ohio, and a letter from Thomas Worthington, special
agent of the said State, enclosing a copy of the constitution thereof,
together with sundry propositions in addition to, and in modification
of, those contained in an act passed at the last session of Congress;
and after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported to
the House their agreement to the resolutions contained therein, with two
amendments, which being severally read, the first amendment was, on the
question put thereupon, agreed to, and the other disagreed to by the
House.

The said resolutions, as amended, were again severally read at the
Clerk's table, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

      1. _Resolved_, That a donation, equal to one thirty-sixth
      part of the amount of the lands in the United States'
      Military Tract, within the State of Ohio, be made for the
      support of schools within that tract.

      2. _Resolved_, That a donation equal to one thirty-sixth
      part of the county of Trumbull, be made, out of the lands
      within the United States' Military Tract, for the support
      of schools within the said county of Trumbull.

      3. _Resolved_, That a donation equal to one thirty-sixth
      part of the Virginia reservation, so far as the unlocated
      lands, within that reservation, (after the warrants issued
      by that State shall have been first satisfied,) will supply
      the same, be made for the support of schools in the
      district contained between the Scioto and Little Miami
      Rivers.

      4. _Resolved_, That a like provision, for the use of
      schools, be made, out of any lands which may hereafter be
      acquired from the Indian tribes.

      5. _Resolved_, That the lands which now are, or hereafter
      may be, appropriated to the use of schools within the State
      of Ohio, be vested in the Legislature thereof, in trust for
      that object.

      6. _Resolved_, That not less than three-fifths of the sum
      offered to be appropriated by Congress for the opening of
      roads, from the Western to the Atlantic waters, shall be
      appropriated under the direction of the State of Ohio, for
      the laying out of roads within that State.

      7. _Resolved_, That, in lieu of the township proposed to be
      granted for the use of an academy, by the act passed the
      fifth day of May one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two,
      there be granted to the State of Ohio, for the purposes
      described in that act, one other entire township, within
      the district of Cincinnati; provided that the State of Ohio
      shall relinquish to the United States, all their claims,
      under the act aforesaid, against the said John C. Symmes.

      8. _Resolved_, That these propositions shall depend on the
      compliance, by the State of Ohio, with the provisions of
      the third proposition, and second section of the aforesaid
      act, entitled "An act to enable the people of the eastern
      division of the territory north-west of the river Ohio to
      form a constitution and State government, and for the
      admission of such State into the Union, on an equal
      footing with the original States, and for other purposes,"
      passed the thirtieth day of April, one thousand eight
      hundred and two.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said
resolutions; and that Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. ELMENDORPH, Mr. GODDARD, Mr.
HENDERSON, and Mr. ARCHER, do prepare and bring in the same.


THURSDAY, February 17.

_Emancipated Slaves from French West Indies._

An engrossed bill to prevent the importation of certain persons into
certain States, where, by the laws thereof, their admission is
prohibited, was read the third time.

And, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the
affirmative--yeas 48, nays 15, as follows:

      YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, James
      A. Bayard, Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude, William Butler,
      Samuel J. Cabell, John Campbell, Matthew Clay, John
      Clopton, John Dawson, Peter Early, Lucas Elmendorph,
      Ebenezer Elmer, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray, Daniel Heister,
      Joseph Heister, William Helms, Archibald Henderson, William
      H. Hill, William Hoge, James Holland, George Jackson,
      Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Anthony New, Thomas Newton,
      jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Thomas Plater, John Rutledge,
      William Shepard, John Smilie, Samuel Smith, Richard
      Stanford, John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel
      Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip
      Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Robert
      Williams, Henry Woods, and Thomas Wynns.

      NAYS.--Robert Brown, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John
      Davenport, Abiel Foster, John A. Hanna, Seth Hastings,
      Samuel L. Mitchill, James Mott, Israel Smith, Josiah Smith,
      Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, and Peleg
      Wadsworth.

_Resolved_, That the title be, "An act to prevent the importation of
certain persons into certain States, where, by the laws thereof, their
admission is prohibited;" and that the Clerk of this House do carry the
said bill to the Senate, and desire their concurrence.


TUESDAY, February 22.

_Military Land Warrants._

GENERAL LAFAYETTE.

The House took up the bill respecting military land warrants.

Mr. DAVIS hoped it would not be adopted without inquiring whether the
land proposed to be given to General Lafayette was the same as was given
to other Major Generals. It was true he had rendered services to the
United States, for which they had made him an allowance. There were
other claims, in his opinion of greater force, made day after day,
without being attended to. If this provision were annexed to the bill he
should vote against its passage; though, otherwise, he would be glad to
vote for it. If General Lafayette was entitled to this land, he wished
to see the business regularly conducted. We are now making provision for
persons who have legal claims. It is right, therefore, to separate these
subjects. Let us attend to one first, and afterwards consider the other.

Mr. DAWSON.--When, on yesterday, I had the honor to submit this
amendment, I indulged the pleasing hope that it would have received not
only the vote of this House, but would have met with the patronage of
all--of all the friends of justice, and of those who remember past
services; and that it would have been adopted without delay and without
debate.

In this I have been wofully disappointed. My fond anticipation was
immediately damped by a gentleman from New York, on whose friendship I
did count, and do now expect; and the amendment, instead of finding
sympathizing advocates, has met with an unexpected opposition; instead
of finding friends proud to reward past services, it has met with
enemies, seeking for reasons to withhold justice.

Mr. Chairman, the search has been in vain; the grateful, the patriot
mind will remember those services, while the reflection on a wish to
withhold justice will be left as consolation to those who have made the
search.

Sir, it was my wish, and it is my determination to support this
amendment solely on the grounds of services rendered to us. Whatever may
have been the conduct and the situation of General Lafayette since our
Revolution, humanity may lament; but, sir, it belongs to us to pay this
tribute to justice, if not to gratitude.

Sir, on yesterday, I stated what was known to every gentleman of this
House, that this gentleman at an early period of life, animated by the
love of liberty, left the pleasures of an enticing Court, encountered
the danger of winds and waves, and entered into the service of a country
known to him only by name, and endeared to him only by its devotion to
that flame which he felt himself. In this service he continued until the
end of our war, submitting to all the hardships and fatigues of the
field; leading our armies to victory, and exposing himself to every
danger; and this without any compensation, and at the sacrifice of the
greater part of his private fortune.

I stated more--that that fortune is now much reduced; and this is what I
do know. Yes, sir, I have spent two days with this adopted child of
America on his little farm. I saw him surrounded by an amiable family,
but not with wealth. I heard him pouring forth his best wishes for the
prosperity and happiness of this country; and I witnessed his constant
exertions to promote its interests. It may not be improper here to
remember what I do know. Some short time before I went to France, the
First Consul applied to Mr. Lafayette to come to this country as
Minister. He replied, "I am by birth a French citizen, by adoption a
citizen of the United States. I have served in that country, and am so
attached to its interest that I doubt, if a case of difficulty should
arise, whether I should do justice to my own; if I did, I am sure I
should be suspected, and therefore I will not place myself in that
delicate situation."

And now, sir, what is it that it is proposed to do for this gentleman;
for him who rendered you services without emolument, and risked his life
without hesitation; to this citizen of the United States; and not a
foreigner, as the gentleman from Kentucky has been pleased to call him?
It is to give to him what we give to others; and what he never would
have received had it not been for the reverse of his fortunes. And shall
we hesitate? I trust not.

Sir, this is not only a question of justice, but it is of feeling; every
soldier, every officer must feel for a fellow-soldier and a
fellow-officer, and every citizen for a fellow-citizen; and such is Mr.
Lafayette.

Whatever may be the fate of that amendment, if it shall be adopted I
shall feel proud for my country. If it shall be negatived, I shall have
the pleasing reflection of having discharged a duty to my country and to
my own feelings.

Mr. T. MORRIS said that the opposition he had made was more to the
manner than to the matter of the motion. He thought it improper to
decide upon it at so late an hour, and when there was scarcely a quorum
of members within the walls. I have, said Mr. M., no objection to the
grant. On the contrary I think it ought to be made in consideration of
the circumstances of General Lafayette. I should indeed have wished that
it had been the subject of a distinct bill. The value of gifts of this
nature depends as much on the manner in which they are made, as on the
gifts themselves; and I think the donation would, in this case, have
been deemed more honorable, if a special bill had been passed, instead
of inserting a clause in another bill. If there were time to bring in a
distinct bill I should now vote against the amendment; but as I am
unwilling to hazard the object altogether, I shall vote for it:
expressing my regret, at the same time, that the gentleman who has
viewed the distressed situation of General Lafayette had not sooner
brought the business forward.

A debate of short duration ensued, between Messrs. S. SMITH, SHEPARD,
DAWSON, and BACON, in favor of the amendment, and Mr. DAVIS against it,
when it was carried without a division.

On engrossing the bill for a third reading, Messrs. SOUTHARD, and
SHEPARD spoke in favor of, and Mr. VARNUM against it--carried, and
ordered to a third reading to-morrow.


SATURDAY, February 26.

_French Spoliations._

Mr. BAYARD moved that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee
of the whole House on a motion of the thirty-first ultimo, "for
indemnifying the citizens of the United States, who, in carrying on a
lawful trade to foreign parts, have suffered losses by the seizure of
their property, made by unauthorized French cruisers, or by any French
cruiser, without sufficient cause," to which Committee of the whole
House was also referred, on the second instant, the report of a select
committee, made the twenty-second of April last, on "the memorials and
petitions of sundry citizens of the United States, and resident
merchants therein, praying relief, in the case of depredations committed
on their vessels and cargoes, while in pursuit of lawful commerce, by
the cruisers of the French Republic, during the late European war:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 21, nays 48, as follows:

      YEAS.--John Bacon, James A. Bayard, John Campbell, Samuel
      W. Dana, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold,
      Seth Hastings, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, Samuel
      Hunt, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Morris, Thomas Plater,
      Nathan Read, John Cotton Smith, Samuel Tenney, Samuel
      Thatcher, George B. Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, and Lemuel
      Williams.

      NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, Theodorus Bailey,
      Phanuel Bishop, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William
      Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton,
      John Condit, William Dickson, Peter Early, Lucas
      Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, Andrew Gregg, Daniel Heister,
      Joseph Heister, William Helms, William Hoge, James Holland,
      George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Thomas
      Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., John
      Randolph, jr., John Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of
      New York,) John Smith, (of Virginia,) Henry Southard,
      Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, John Stewart, John
      Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram
      Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
      Isaac Van Horne, Robert Williams, Robert Williams, Richard
      Winn, and Thomas Wynns.


THURSDAY, March 3.

_Thanks to the Speaker._

On a motion made and seconded,

      "That the thanks of this House be presented to NATHANIEL
      MACON, the Speaker, in testimony of their approbation for
      his conduct in discharging the arduous and important duties
      assigned him, while in the chair:"

It was unanimously resolved in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, every
member present voting in the affirmative.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER made his acknowledgments to the House, in manner
following:

      "GENTLEMEN: Accept my sincere thanks for the vote which you
      have been pleased to pass, expressive of your approbation
      of my conduct in the chair; they are also due to each of
      you, for the liberal support which I have uniformly
      received.

      "Permit me to wish you a safe return home and happy meeting
      with your friends."

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate having
completed the Legislative business before them, are now ready to
adjourn.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, _sine die_.




INDEX TO VOL. II.


A

_Accommodation_ of the President, _see Appropriations_.

ADAMS, JOHN, Vice President, attends Senate, 3;
  declares result of election of President to Senate, 6;
  gives notice to the Senate of time he will take the oath, 6;
  valedictory to the Senate, 8;
  reply to answer of the Senate to his valedictory address as Vice President, 9;
  his inaugural address, 11;
  presides in joint meeting of Senate and House, to count the votes
      for President, 62;
  remarks on mode of proceeding, 62;
  his method of counting the votes, 62;
  votes given to, for President in 1796, 62;
  declaration to the two Houses of the votes for President in 1796, 63;
  notifies Congress of the time he will take the oath as President, 66;
  President of United States, 113;
  reply to answer of Senate to President's message, 119;
  his proclamation calling extra session of Congress, 120;
  reply to answer of House to President's message, 143;
  reply to answer of Senate to message, 170;
  reply to answer of House to President's message, 182;
  reply to answer of House to President's message, 330;
  message to House announcing death of Washington, 434;
  vote for, as President, 487;
  reply to address of Senate, 484;
  reply to answer of Senate to President's message, 323;
  reply to answer of Senate to message, 402;
  reply to address of Senate on death of Washington, 403;
  answer to address of House, 432;
  letter to Senate on public property in his hands, 487;
  reply to answer of House to message, 500;
  his administration, _note_, 539.
  _See Message._
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

ADAMS, SAMUEL, vote for, as President in 1796, 63.

_Address in Senate_, in answer to message at 2d session, 4th Congress, 4;
  in answer to message 1st session, fifth Congress, 117;
  2d session, 5th Congress, 169;
  3d session, 5th Congress, 322;
  1st session, 6th Congress, 402;
  2d session, 6th Congress, 483;
  of Senate to President on death of Washington, 403.

  _Answer of House to Message_, 2d session, 4th Congress, considered, 17;
    motion to lay over, 17;
    unusual if not unprecedented motion, 17;
    improper to go into the subject before members had time to reflect
      on it, 17;
    the more expeditious, the greater will the effect be, 17;
    a subject of extensive consequence, 18;
    too important to be hastened, 18;
    no precedent for delay, 18;
    only two subjects on which there can be a difference of opinion, 18;
    a delay would have a very unpleasant appearance, 18;
    many bad consequences may attend hastening the subject, 18;
    are we always to act by precedent?, 18;
    motion to postpone lost, 19;
    verbal amendments proposed, 22;
    debate on, 22;
    parts expressive of wisdom and firmness in the Administration
      objected to, 23;
    has been a want of firmness for the last six years, 23;
    this want has brought the country to its present alarming condition, 23;
    no reason to exult in the view of our foreign relations, 23;
    our internal situation no ground for admiration, 23;
    the government can go on very well after the President retires, 23;
    no uncomfortable sensations felt at his retirement, 23;
    wisdom and firmness not doubted, 24;
    further debate, 24, 25, 26, 27;
    no inconvenience from voting the address, 28;
    shall one slip, one criminal slip rob the President of his good name?, 28;
    duty of the House to do that patriot all the honor they could, 28;
    United States do not enjoy "tranquil prosperity," 29;
    we are not the proper organs to declare the people free and enlightened, 29;
    condition of Europe, 30;
    further debate, 31, 32;
    address adopted, 33.

  _Answer of House to President's Message_, 1st session, 5th Congress,
     debate on, 124;
    sections proposed to be inserted, 124;
    the answer is predicated upon the principle of approving all
      the measures of the Executive with respect to France, whilst
      the amendment avoids giving that approbation, 124;
    which of the two grounds would the House take, was the question, 124;
    the present a most important crisis, 125;
    statement of the case, 125;
    the rights of France relative to the three principal subjects which
      are causes of complaint between the two countries, 126;
    arguments of our ministers recapitulated, 126;
    free ships make free goods, 126;
    contraband articles, 126;
    carrying provision, 126;
    if these amendments are agreed to, fresh insults and aggressions
      must be expected, 127;
    was the conduct of France justifiable in rejecting our minister?, 127;
    complaints of France, 127;
    examined, 127, 128;
    France considers our government and people divided, 129;
    address objectionable in approving the course pursued in
       conducting our foreign relations and in expressions of
       resentment and indignation towards France, 130;
    conduct of France considered, 130;
    federalism and anti-federalism, 130;
    amendment scrutinized, 131;
    all the steps taken by the Executive had a view to an eventual
      appeal to arms, 131;
    shall the Executive be approved, or France put on the same ground as other
      belligerents, 131;
    any answer to message objectionable, 132;
    further debate, 133;
    facts disclosed by the message, 134;
    the answer of the committee seems to express indignity on
      account of injuries received from France, and a
      determination to repel them--the amendment is in a
      conciliatory tone and recommends that negotiations be begun
      as with other belligerents, 135;
    arguments in favor of each considered, 135, 136;
    course of the debate, 136;
    view of the question, 137;
    from what line of conduct are we to expect the most beneficent issue, 137;
    the amount of the question is whether we shall place all nations on a level
      as to commerce, and remove inequalities existing between them, 138;
    a view of facts, 138, 139;
    other amendments proposed, 139;
    shall any notice be taken of the speech of Barras?, 140;
    it is an indignity, 140, 141;
    amendments carried, 142;
    moved that such members as do not choose need not attend at the
      presentation of the answer, 142;
    all now obliged to attend unless sick or leave of absence obtained, 142;
    the mover excused unanimously, if it would not comport with his,
      dignity to attend 142.

  _Answer to President's Message_, 2d session, 5th Congress; verbal amendments
      proposed and adopted, 181;
    an excuse from attending the ceremony asked, 182;
    the House will not compel the members to go about parading the streets of
      Philadelphia, 182;
    none of the members particularly anxious for the society of the
      member who asks to be excused, 182;
    no power in the House to compel any member to attend, 182;
    further discussion, 182;
    motion withdrawn, 182.

  _Answer in House_, 3d session, 5th Congress, 329;
    1st session, 6th Congress, 431;
    2d session, 6th Congress, 499.

_Address_ of House to President, _see Index_, vol. 1.

_Admirals in the Navy_, bill for their appointment reported, 473;
  motion to postpone, 473;
  no necessity for the bill, 473;
  reasons for the appointment, 473;
  postponement lost, 474.

_African Slaves_, memorial of Quakers on, presented in Senate, 170;
  ordered to be withdrawn, 171.
  _See Index_, vol. 1, African Slaves and Slavery and Slave trade.

ALBERTSON, JOB, a manumitted slave, petition of, 57.

ALEXANDER, WILLIAM, petition of, 198.

_Algerine captives_, ransom of, 95.
  _See Algerine War_, Index, vol. 1.

_Alien Enemies_, bill relative to, 280;
  amended bill reported, 301;
  bill from House committee taken up, 305;
  motion to rise for purpose of postponement, 305;
  debate, 305;
  motion withdrawn, 305.

_Alien and Sedition_ laws, petitions for repeal of, 358, 364.

_Aliens_.--_See Naturalization Laws._

ALLEN, JOHN, Representative from Connecticut, 135, 179, 331;
  on a naval armament, 154;
  offers resolution for additional duty on salt, 163;
  on relations with France, 240, 241;
  on the naturalization laws, 258, 259;
  on the sedition bill, 305;
  on the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 369.

ALSTON, WILLIS, Representative from North Carolina, 429, 497, 569, 693;
  against a mausoleum to Washington, 511;
  on the reading of the letter of James McHenry, 696.

_Amendment to Constitution_, resolution relative to, 446.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

AMES, FISHER, Representative from Massachusetts, 14;
  on the address to the President, 17, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30;
  on bill to increase compensation of President and other officers, 61;
  on the accommodation of the President, 92;
  on naval appropriations, 101, 103.

AMY DARDIN'S _claim_, on a report to refuse the prayer of the petitioner
      the House voted in the negative, 85;
  the vote a precedent against the act of limitation, 85;
  an act of limitation should be considered only as a guard against fraud, 86;
  cause of the act of limitation, 86;
  any exception from the operation of the act should be in a general way, 86;
  statement of the case, 188;
  motion to report bill, 188;
  claim just but opposed to limitation act, 189;
  motion withdrawn, 189;
  motion to refer report on petition to Committee on Claims, 191;
  also moved to appoint a committee to report a bill, 191;
  also moved to refer to Committee on Claims, 191;
  referred to Committee of the Whole on excepting certain claims from
      operation of limitation act, 191;
  resolution to appoint a committee to bring in a bill for relief, 218;
  facts of the case, 213;
  it will throw open a door to every claim heretofore determined as barred, 213;
  setting aside limitation acts in most objectionable way, 213;
  a hard case, 213;
  it will not authorize the treasury to settle any claim, 213;
  acts of limitation liable to strong objections, 213;
  resolution lost, 213;
  Committee on Claims report against prayer of petitioner, 470;
  report adopted, 470;
  referred, 735.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

ANDERSON, JOSEPH, Senator from Tennessee, 165, 321, 399, 481, 540, 664;
  on the resolutions relative to the right of the United States to the
      free navigation of the Mississippi, 685.

_Appropriation bill_ for 1797, amendments of Senate, 95;
  for 1798, 198.

_Appropriations to purchase furniture_ for President's house; appropriation
      considered, 88;
  indirect way of raising President's salary, 88;
  what has been done in former years, 88;
  if it was an increase of salary the President could dispose of the money as he
      pleased, but the furniture proposed for purchase remains the property of
      the United States, 89;
  motion to strike out $14,000 and insert $8,000--no reason for furnishing
      of the President more than that of any other officer, 89;
  the thing wrong, a larger salary should be given, 89;
  the situation of the President should be comfortable and respectable, 90;
  further debate on the amount of the appropriation, 90, 91, 92.

  _Military._--The hospital department considered, 93;
    $30,000 moved, 93;
    unnecessary to appropriate so much, 93;
    $10,000 enough, 93;
    $10,000 adopted, 93;
    Quartermaster's Department, &c., considered, 93;
    necessary to allow a certain discretion to the Secretary with
      regard to specific sums, 93;
    appropriations of previous years, 93;
    appropriations for repairing certain posts on lakes should be rejected,
      as it will become a yearly expense, 94;
    state of those works not known, 94;
    appropriation for West Point, debated, 94, 95;
    items agreed to, 97;
    motion to insert an item for the purchase of horses and equipment
       of cavalry, 97;
    debate, 98, 99. _See Defensive Measures_.
    Question of filling blanks, considered, 252;
    accounts of War Department obscure, 252;
    various items examined, 252;
    $150,000 adopted for Quartermaster's Department, 253.

  _Naval._--_Appropriation for finishing three frigates_, considered, 76;
    so far as they go, three frigates give stability and protection
      to commerce, 76;
    will save more than five times their cost, 76;
    treaty or ships are the two things before us, 76;
    motion to connect a bill for manning and equipping, 77;
    this form of _tacking_ very improper, 77;
    constitutionality of the appropriation, 78;
    question on the connection of the two bills, 78;
    question of tacking the two bills carried, 78;
    appropriation resolved, 79.

  _Pay and subsistence_ of three naval captains, considered, 95;
    $4,200 the estimate--$5,000 appropriated, 95.

  _Moved to appropriate_ $175,000 for finishing three frigates, 99;
    smaller sum sufficient to secure them from injury, as it was the
      intention not to fit them for sea and save expense of manning them, 99;
    no prospect of manning them at present high rate of wages, 99;
    all appropriations are now specific and particular, 100;
    this sum is for finishing only, 100;
    if the frigates are not to be used, they should be sold at once, 100;
    many members intend to keep the frigates in such a state as to
      prevent their being manned, 100;
    a question whether we shall have a navy or not involved in this
      discussion, 100;
    Presidential discretion as proved by the past, 100;
    if this money is voted the frigates will get to sea under some pretext, 100;
    if the frigates are not finished the money expended will be lost, 101;
    if they are finished members fear they will be manned, 101;
    members who oppose finishing the frigates, think this country will
      never be a naval power, 101;
    its necessity will soon appear, 101;
    our commerce is now only less than that of Great Britain, 101;
    last year it was voted to finish the frigates--how can the House
      withhold the appropriation?, 101;
    if this body is a Legislature, how can its control over the public purse be
      denied?, 102;
    further debated, 103;
    question carried, 104, 105.

  _Specific Appropriations._--Moved to add to the bill the words, "which several
      sums shall be solely applied to the objects for which they
      are appropriated," 104;
    appropriations for some objects might fall short and others overrun, 104;
    this surplus should be used for deficiencies, 104;
    the military appropriation regarded as an aggregate for all the
      objects of the establishment, 104;
    theory good but the practice may be bad, 104;
    the practice of the Secretary, 105;
    motion carried, 105;
    bill returned to the House from the Senate with an amendment to remove the
      restriction to confine the expenditure to the specific objects
      for which each sum is appropriated, 106;
    not according to law as required by the constitution to appropriate
      money for one object and expend it for another, 106;
    the House has a constitutional power to depart from identifying
      articles to the sums appropriated, 106;
    the mode of the Senate gives too unbounded power to the Executive, 106;
    only four hours remain of the session--the bill may be lost, 106;
    to allow the Executive this power is an infringement of the
      constitution, 107;
    the amendment of the Senate lessens the privileges of the House, 107;
    further debate, 107;
    amendment lost, 107;
    Senate recedes, 108;
    a proposition for $197,000 to complete the frigates, 153;
    only two arguments in favor of the bill, viz. to lay the foundation
      for a navy, and the frigates being built, it is proper to man them, 153;
    if navies are necessary to European nations they are not to us--as
      a view of our revenue and the expense of a fleet prove, 153;
    revenue and expense examined, 153;
    reasons for the extra expense, 154;
    commerce will be carried on if we have no expensive naval force, 154;
    a navy a great evil to this country, our interests lie in the soil, 154;
    shall we at a time when we are threatened with danger abandon
      these frigates, 154;
    further debate, 154;
    bill passed, 155.

  _Resolution for a committee of inquiry relative to expenditure of naval
      appropriations_, 195;
    such a committee unusual, 195;
    implies censure on public officers, 196;
    no statements yet received, 196;
    inquiry occasioned because a further appropriation called for, 196;
    if money has been justly expended for the frigates little objection
      would arise to further appropriations, 196;
    the expense has exceeded all belief, 196;
    objections to the inquiry considered, 196;
    reasons for the inquiry, 196;
    such an inquiry always proper, 197;
    if favorable, it will forward the design of creating a navy, 197;
    different estimates which have been made to the House, 197;
    further debate, 197.
    _See Defensive Measures._ _See Appropriations_, Index, vol. 1.

ARCHER, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 569, 694.

_Armed Vessels_, instructions to, _see Defensive Measures_.

_Army Establishment_, bill to fix, returned with the President's veto, debated,
      96.

  _Augmentation of Army_ bill, details of, 358;
    second reading ordered, 358.

  _Reduction of Army_, remarks on, 578.

  _Peace Establishment_, bill to fix, considered, 585;
    various amendments proposed, 585;
    better than former bill, and saves expense, 585;
    other considerations, 586.

_Army, Provisional._--_See Defensive Measures._

_Army._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Aurora_ newspaper, investigation in Senate relative to, 40.


B

BACON, JOHN, Representative from Massachusetts, 569, 693;
  on the apportionment bill, 574;
  relative to State balances, 595;
  on Ohio State Government, 649;
  on reading the letter of McHenry, 697;
  on call for information relative to cession of Louisiana, 704;
  on compensation to the ex-United States judges, 730;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 736.

BAER, GEORGE, jr., Representative from Maryland, 120, 179, 826, 429, 497.

BAILEY, THEODORUS, Representative from New York, 14, 429, 497, 569, 694.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BALDWIN, ABRAHAM, Representative from Georgia, 14, 121, 179, 326;
  on a national university, 35;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 43;
  on petition of Hugh L. White, 51;
  on contingent expenses of Congress, 57;
  on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 132;
  on building frigates, 146;
  on foreign intercourse, 202;
  on the limits of Georgia, 220;
  on relations with France, 225;
  on the bill to raise a provisional army, 246;
  on letters of marque, 299;
  on the remonstrance of Georgia, 331;
  on disputed Presidential elections, 406;
  senator from Georgia, 399, 481, 540, 661;
  elected President _pro tem._ of Senate, 541.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Bank of the United States._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Bankruptcy_, bill to establish uniform system of, passed House, 536.

_Bankrupt Act_, should not be amended but repealed, 724;
  _ex post facto_ law, 724;
  some objectionable features should be amended, 724;
  never should have been such a law, 724;
  other considerations in favor of amendment, 724;
  constitution does not give power to impair contracts, 725;
  the person may be exonerated but not the property, 725;
  further debate, 725.

_Barbary Powers_, resolution authorizing the President further and more
      effectually to provide for protecting commerce against the,
      considered, 571;
  moved to strike out words "further and more," 571;
  if adopted in present form we pledge ourselves to increase the
      naval force, 571;
  the words relate to the measures proposed, 571;
  it went only to authorize the President without any pledges, 571;
  we pledge ourselves to extend more protection without inquiring into
      its necessity, 571;
  force enough at present, 571;
  further discussion, 572;
  amendment lost, 572;
  original motion carried, 572.

BARD, DAVID, Representative from Pennsylvania, 17, 120, 180, 326.

BARRAS, President of French Directory, his speech to the American minister,
      115.

BARTLETT, BAILEY, Representative from Massachusetts, 180, 429.

BAYARD, JAMES A., Representative from Delaware, 123, 179, 430, 522, 569, 712;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 185;
  on foreign intercourse, 205;
  on relations with France, 242;
  on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 261, 262;
  on taking new census before laying direct tax, 265;
  on presents to ministers, 276;
  on admission to citizenship, 278;
  on bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 281, 282;
  on abrogation of treaty with France, 313;
  on the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 365, 369;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 448, 449, 451, 452, 455;
  on the bill prohibiting the slave trade, 475;
  on repeal of internal taxes, 579, 581;
  on Georgia limits, 576, 577;
  on army reduction, 578;
  on judiciary resolutions, 582;
  on the Mediterranean trade, 586;
  on the collection of internal revenues, 587;
  on State balances, 594, 596;
  against repeal of judiciary establishment, 611;
  in favor of relief for French spoliations, 644, 646;
  on Ohio State Government, 648, 649, 650;
  against discharge of the committee relative to cession of Louisiana, 720;
  on amendment to the bankrupt act, 724;
  on taking up resolution relative to French spoliations, 732, 733;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 737.

BECKLEY, JOHN, chosen Clerk of House, 569.

BENTON, LEMUEL, Representative from South Carolina, 195.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BINGHAM, WILLIAM, Senator from Pennsylvania, 3, 114, 165, 321, 399, 485;
  elected President _pro tem._ of Senate, 9.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BIRD, JOHN, Representative from New York, 429, 500;
  against the mausoleum to Washington, 515;
  on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 519-525.

BISHOP, PHANUEL, Representative of Massachusetts, 429, 498, 569, 693.

BLODGET, SAMUEL, Memorial relative to a National University, 712.

BLOODWORTH, TIMOTHY, Senator from N. Carolina, 144, 165, 821, 403, 481;
  on breach of privilege, 417.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BLOUNT, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 120, 180, 326;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58, 60;
  moves thanks to the Speaker at close of 4th Congress, 111.

BLOUNT, WILLIAM, Senator from Tennessee, 3, 114;
  to provide further naval force, 149;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 186, 187.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BOUDE, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 569, 693.

BOWIE, WALTER, Representative from Maryland, 647, 693.

BRACE, JONATHAN, Representative from Connecticut, 326, 429;
  on intercourse with France, 344.

BRADBURY, THEOPHILUS, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BRADFORD, WILLIAM, Senator from Rhode Island, 8, 113;
  chosen president _pro tem._ of the Senate, 119;
  resigns, as Senator from Rhode Island, 165.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BRADLEY, STEPHEN R., Senator from Vermont, 540, 661;
  elected president _pro tem._ of the Senate, 662.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Breach of Privilege._--Case of Matthew Lyon, 205;
  case stated, 205;
  resolution of expulsion referred, 206;
  letter from Lyon, 206;
  report of Committee on Privileges, 206;
  motion to postpone carried, 207;
  question of hearing the evidence in committee or before the House
      discussed, 208;
  in committee, carried, 208;
  _note_, relative to the evidence, 208;
  motion of expulsion lost, 208;
  resolution to expel Griswold and Lyon, 210;
  motion to postpone, 210;
  no reason for delay, 210;
  neither the dignity, honor, nor peace of the House can be preserved
      while these members remain in it, 210;
  the innocent should not be punished with the guilty;
  Lyon passive throughout, 210;
  the business should be taken up with despatch, 210;
  motion to refer to Committee on Privilege, with leave to sit during
      the session, carried, 211;
  motion to report in writing, carried, 212;
  motion that both pledge their words to the House to keep the peace,
      carried, 212;
  how to be executed, discussed, 212;
  pledge given, 213;
  report of Committee on Privilege, 213;
  debate on the report, 214;
  resolution of expulsion disagreed to, 215;
  resolution of reprimand adopted, 216.

  _Resolution in the Senate_ relative to publications in a certain paper,
      considered, 408;
    what powers has the Senate in this matter?, 408;
    can it define the crime and sit as judges?, 408;
    it had better be given up, 409;
    what are the privileges of Congress, and how far are they defined by the
      constitution, examined at length, 409;
    should the privileges of the parliament of Great Britain be those
      of Congress?, 411;
    privilege limited to what is necessary and nothing more, 412;
    with respect to libels, 412;
    liberty of the press applied to these defined privileges, 413;
    principle of the law of libel, 413;
    apprehensions of Government from the press, 413;
    object of open doors, 414;
    how far in case of libels shall either branch of Government have power
      to decide in what affects the liberty of the citizen?, 415;
    only course to get rid of the subject, 416;
    further debate, 417, 418;
    amendment proposed, 419;
    resolution passed, 421;
    report of committee considered, 422;
    report as adopted, 422;
    form of proceedings reported, 423;
    proceedings in the case of William Duane, 424, 425, 426.

BRECKENRIDGE, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 540, 661;
  moves repeal of Judiciary establishment, 546;
  on repeal of Judiciary establishment, 546.

BRENT, RICHARD, Representative from Virginia, 14, 121, 179, 569, 694;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 55;
  on naval appropriations, 103;
  on the bill relative to the protection of commerce, 290.

BROOKS, DAVID, Representative from New York, 120, 180, 326;
  on relations with France, 227;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157, 160.

BROWN, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 5, 117, 171, 323, 399, 481, 545, 665;
  on disputed Presidential elections, 405.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BROWN, JOHN, Representative from Rhode Island, 429, 505;
  on petition of free blacks, 438;
  on the bill to prohibit carrying on the slave trade, 474;
  for a mausoleum to Washington, 516.

BROWN, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 326, 429, 497, 569, 693.

BRYAN, NATHAN, Representative from North Carolina, 117, 120, 188;
  decease of, 295;
  _note_, 295.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BUCK, DANIEL, Representative from Vermont, 60;
  on bill to increase compensation of President, and other officers, 64;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 72, 73;
  on the accommodation of the President, 90;
  on liberation of La Fayette, 110.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BULLOCK, STEPHEN, Representative from Massachusetts, 148, 179, 326.

BURGESS, DEMPSEY, Representative from North Carolina, 38, 188.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BURR, AARON, Senator from New York, 3;
  vote for, as President in 1796, 62;
  vote for, as President, 487;
  notification of his election as Vice President, 487;
  Vice President in Senate, 665.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

BUTLER, WILLIAM, Representative from North Carolina, 570, 694.


C

CABELL, SAMUEL J., Representative from Virginia, 120, 192, 331, 522, 570,
      725.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

CALBERT, GEORGE, petition of, 49.

CAMPBELL, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 570, 694.

CANADIAN REFUGEES.--Resolution to appropriate certain lands on the Miami, as
      compensation to refugees from British Provinces, debated, 44;
  unnecessary to state now the location of the land, 45;
  general resolutions to grant land, adopted, 45;
  resolutions to grant five hundred acres to each, considered, 45;
  improper to grant equal quantity to each, 45;
  some have suffered more than others, 45;
  resolution lost, 45;
  Senate bill considered, 480;
  amendments rejected, 480;
  Senate adhere, 480;
  bill postponed, 480.

CANTRILL, STEPHEN, petition of, 242.

CARPENTER, THOMAS, petition to House relative to debates, 188;
  memorial to House relative to reporting debates, 505.

_Census of the Union._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

CHAMPLIN, CHRISTOPHER G., Representative from Rhode Island, 120, 179, 329,
429;
  moves vote of thanks, 388;
  in favor of Admirals in the navy, 474;
  for a mausoleum to Washington, 512, 515.

_Charitable objects_, appropriations by Congress for, _see Index_, _vol. 1_.

CHAPMAN, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 120, 165, 179, 326.

CHAPMAN, NATHANIEL, Senator from Vermont, 321, 402, 481, 540.

_Chickasaw Claims_, petition relative to, 49.

CHRISTIE, GABRIEL, Representative from Maryland, 17, 429, 497;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 59;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 72;
  on petition of free blacks, 439. _See Index_, vol. 1.

CLAIBORNE, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 17, 120, 180, 331, 570, 693;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 43, 44;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 54;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 72;
  on liberation of La Fayette, 110;
  on expatriation, 150;
  on establishing the Navy Department, 250;
  on admirals in the navy, 474;
  on trade with the Indians, 501; _note_, 501;
  against a mausoleum to Washington, 512, 515;
  on Georgia limits, 577. _See Index_, vol. 1.

CLAIBORNE, WILLIAM C. C., Representative from Tennessee, 180, 326, 429, 497;
  on the claims of Stephen Cantrill, 243;
  on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 261, 263;
  on admission of aliens to citizenship, 279;
  on intercourse with France, 295;
  on letters of marque, 298;
  on direct taxes, 302, 304.

CLAY, MATTHEW, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 432, 498, 569, 694.

CLAYTON, JOSHUA, Senator from Maryland, 172;
  Clergy, pay of, in Massachusetts, 195.

CLINTON, GEORGE, vote for, as President in 1796, 63.

CLOPTON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 14, 120, 180, 326, 570, 693.
_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Closed doors, or open doors_, on the cession of Louisiana, discussion relative
      to, 701.

COCHRAN, JAMES, Representative from New York, 120, 179, 330;
  on tax on lawyers, 155.

COD FISHERIES.--Proviso offered against further increase of bounties, 163.
      _See Index_, vol. 1.

COIT, JOSHUA, Representative from Connecticut, 14, 120, 179;
  on kidnapping negroes, 45;
  moves to postpone, 48;
  on petition of Hugh L. White, 49;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 55;
  on the purchase of a site for a Navy Yard, 66;
  on naval appropriation, 76;
  on answer of House to President Adams first message, 139;
  on tax on lawyers, 156;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157, 159;
  on publication of the debates, 188. _See Index_, vol. 1.

COLES, ISAAC, Representative from Virginia, 14.

COLHOUN, JAMES LEWIS, Senator from South Carolina, 545.

_Collectors of Revenue_, bill for, compensation of, considered, 655.

_Commerce, Depredations on_, message of President on, 152;
  Report of Secretary of Treasury on, 152.

_Commerce_, protection of, _see Defensive Measures_.

_Commerce of United States_.--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Committee_, to wait on the President relative to answer to his message, 33;
  on memorial of Quakers, 188;
  on resolution to expel Matthew Lyon, 206;
  on privileges, 206;
  on provisions for determining legality or illegality of votes for
      President in the States, 407;
  to report suitable measures on death of Washington, 434;
  of House, 570.

_Compensation of President, Vice President, and other officers._--Bill from the
      Senate to increase President's salary $5000, Vice President's $2000,
      Senators', Representatives' and various other officers' 25 per cent., 60;
  debate on commitment to Committee of the Whole, 61;
      provision should be made for the expense of removing to the
      new Federal City and the purchase of new furniture for the
      President, but not by increase of salary, 63;
  expense of removal can be made up hereafter, 64;
  new furniture every four or eight years too extravagant, 64;
  salaries sufficiently high, 64;
  better advance the salary and let the President purchase the furniture, 64;
  true question is, whether it be right and just to augment the salaries,
      or whether they are adequate and just for the sacrifices made by the
      officers in undertaking the business of government, 64;
  the expenses of the first President amounted to the whole sum allowed, 65;
  can other Presidents be expected to give their services? 65;
  such is also the case with other officers of the Government, 65;
  the practice of the individual States warrants an advance, 65;
  what occurred in Holland, 65;
  motion to strike out first section relative to President and Vice President,
      carried, 65.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

CONDIT, JOHN, Representative from New Jersey, 429, 498, 569, 693.

CONDY, JONATHAN W., elected Clerk of House, 430.

_Congress_, Fourth, second session, commenced, 3;
  closes with Washington's Administration, 111;
  Fifth, first session commences May 15, 1797, 113;
  extra session, 113;
  first session, Fifth Congress, adjournment postponed, 153;
  adjourns, 165; _note_ on, 165;
  extra session, objects of _note_, 165;
  second session, Fifth Congress, meets Nov. 13, 1797, 166;
  Fifth, second session, adjourns, 320;
  Fifth, third session, commenced, 321;
  Fifth, third session, adjourns, 326;
  Fifth, _note_, 389;
  Sixth, first session, 399;
  bill for fixing time and place of meeting, 479;
  adjournment first session, Sixth Congress, 480;
  first meeting at Washington, 481;
  Seventh, first session, Senate, 540;
  adjournment first session, Seventh Congress, 660;
  meeting of second session, Seventh Congress, 661;
  adjourns, 744.

_Connecticut_, vote for President, 62, 487.

_Contested Elections._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Contingent expenses_ of Congress, 57;
  manner of acting upon them, 57.

_Convention_ with French Republic ratified by Senate, 492.

COOKE, WILLIAM, Senator from Tennessee, 3, 114, 400, 481, 540, 664;
  on breach of privilege, 408, 416;
  on the repeal of the Judiciary establishment, 560.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

COOPER, WILLIAM, Representative from New York, 14, 429, 497;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 40;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 72.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

COOPER, THOMAS, petition of, 656.

COUNT DE GRASSE, report on petition of daughters of, 192;
  bill granting annuity to daughters of, considered, 195;
  $500 per year for each daughter proposed, 195;
  a serious sum, in five years amounting to $10,000, 195;
  this sum no consideration for the risk and responsibility the Count took of
      remaining in the Chesapeake in defiance of order, 195; _note_, 195;
  ten times that sum would have been paid if asked then, 195;
  livelihood of other families, 195;
  $400 allowed, 195.

CRAIK, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497;
  on a National University, 35, 38;
  on petition of Hugh L. White, 49;
  on military appropriations, 98;
  on restricting aliens from citizenship, 278;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 451;
  on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 521;
  on bill relative to District of Columbia, 524.

_Credentials of members_, report of committee on, 530.

CUTLER, MANASSEH, Representative from Massachusetts, 569, 693.

CUTTS, RICHARD, Representative from Massachusetts, 569, 694.


D

DANA, SAMUEL W., Representative from Connecticut, 120, 179, 326, 429, 505,
      569, 693;
  on the report on the Griswold and Lyon case, 215;
  on relations with France, 230;
  on a provisional army, 243;
  on the resolutions granting letters of marque, 300;
  on the sedition bill, 309;
  on the abrogation of the treaty with France, 312, 313;
  on the capture of French vessels, 361;
  on the law of retaliation, 386;
  on petition of free blacks, 439, 442;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 449, 450, 453;
  on Georgia limits, 577;
  on repeal of internal taxes, 580;
  on reducing duties on imports, 591;
  relative to State balances, 596;
  against repeal of Judiciary establishment, 636;
  in favor of relief for French spoliations, 643, 646;
  on call for papers relative to cession of Louisiana, 699, 701, 709, 713, 716;
  on petition of United States judges for compensation, 728, 730.

DAVENPORT, FRANKLIN, Representative from New Jersey, 323, 429, 497.

DAVENPORT, JOHN, Representative from Connecticut, 14, 120, 429, 497, 569, 693.

DAVIS, THOMAS T., Representative from Kentucky, 188, 502, 569, 693;
  on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 210;
  on the report on the Griswold and Lyon case, 214;
  relative to letters of marque, 296;
  on direct taxes, 302, 303;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 450, 454;
  on reporting the debates, 509;
  on Georgia limits, 576;
  on call for papers relative to cession of Louisiana, 699;
  on granting land warrants to Lafayette, 742.

DAWSON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 693;
  on the claim of General Kosciusko, 191, 193;
  on the bill to repeal a part of the Sedition act, 535;
  on call for information relative to cession of Louisiana, 704;
  on postponing French spoliations, 734;
  on granting land warrants to Lafayette, 743.

DAYTON, JONATHAN, Representative from New Jersey, 14, 120, 179, 326;
  on the address to the President, 25, 30, 32;
  on land for Canadian refugees, 45;
  offers resolution relative to land for Canadian refugees, 45;
  on liability of United States to a State for war expenses, 50, 51;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 73;
  on suability of the States, 88;
  answer to vote of thanks of the House, 111;
  chosen Speaker, first session, 5th Congress, 121;
  returns thanks, 121;
  on defensive measures, 145;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 160, 161;
  on relations with France, 226;
  on a new census for direct taxes, 265;
  acknowledges thanks of House as Speaker, 389;
  Senator from New Jersey, 401, 483, 541, 661;
  on breach of privilege, 418;
  on the right of the United States to the free navigation of
      the Mississippi, 690.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

DEARBORN, HENRY, Representative from Massachusetts, 14;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 71;
  on military and naval appropriations, 94;
  on naval appropriations, 101.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Debates, Reporting of the_, report on petition relative to, considered, 19;
  what would be the expense?, 19;
  about $1,600 per session, 19;
  this attempt would be of great use to the House, 19;
  why give one a privilege more than another, 19;
  no one to have preference?, 19;
  no need of expense, 19;
  more useful than to take so many newspapers, 19;
  further debate, 20;
  the book will be published whether the House adopt it or not, 20;
  shall the debates be under the sanction of the House or not?, 20;
  it will encourage the undertaking, and add to the stock of information, 20;
  petition of Thomas Carpenter, 188;
  reference objected to, 188;
  House had often refused to have any thing to do with the publication
      of the debates, 188;
  petition referred, 188;
  memorial of reporters for accommodation, considered, 501;
  statement of the Speaker, relative to his proceedings, 502;
  importance of having the debates taken with fidelity, 502;
  further debate, 502;
  referred to a committee, 502;
  report of committee against any action, 505;
  importance to the people of a knowledge of the merits of acts and
      reasons for our conduct, 506;
  uniform practice, 506;
  two objections considered, 506;
  shall an admission of a reporter take place independent of the Speaker,
      or shall he decide on its propriety?, 507;
  further debate, 507;
  objected that it will be against precedent, prevent members from having
      room, and a possibility the Speaker may indulge stenographers, 507;
  considered, 508;
  the only question is, whether the House shall persevere in the old plan, 508;
  further debate, 509, 510, 511;
  report adopted, 511.

  _In Senate_, application for permission to report debates of, 545;
    resolution, proceedings thereon, 545;
    permission granted, 545.

  _In House_, resolution offered that Speaker assign place to
       stenographers, 583;
    the question is, under what authority they shall be admitted, 583;
    facts relative to this view, 583;
    improper to come to any solemn decision, 584;
    important that the debates of the House should be taken with accuracy, and
      published without fear, 584;
    amended resolution carried, 584.

_Defensive Measures._--A series of resolutions considered, 144;
  proposition to make further provision for forts offered now only as
      a subject for inquiry, 144;
  usefulness of this system of fortification doubtful, 144;
  this country may be drawn into a vortex of war and should be prepared, 144;
  resolution adopted, 144.

  _Completing and manning frigates._--Abstract principle first to be
      decided, 145;
    shall the frigates be manned?, 145;
    motion to strike out word "manning," 145;
    lost, 145;
    resolution adopted, 145.

  _To procure further naval force_, considered, 145;
    it might be used for convoys, 146; _note_, 146;
    impolitic to adopt the measure, 146;
    cost will not amount to tenth part of loss by captures, 146;
    resolution agreed to, 147.

  _Arming merchant vessels_, considered, 147;
    merchantmen are now arming, and it is necessary to regulate
      the business, 147;
    what is to be done with these vessels?, 147;
    if they act offensively it will lead to war, 147;
    does the law of nations permit merchant vessels of neutral
      nations to arm?, 147;
    the public defence intrusted to Government, 147;
    only exception in the case of letters of marque, 147;
    in any other case war has always followed, 148;
    further debate, 148;
    resolution lost, 148;
    further debate on resolution authorizing President to provide naval
      force when circumstances shall require, 149.

  _Bill from Senate authorizing President to raise an army of_ 20,000 men,
      question on its second reading, 243;
    not necessary to pass such a bill under any possible modification, 243;
    if an army is necessary, the Legislature ought to raise it, 243;
    no necessity for this measure at this session, 243;
    disgraceful to reject this bill without a second reading, 244;
    this course prescribed by the rules of the House, 244;
    what does a provisional army mean?, 244;
    this bill declares the power to raise an army in the President, the
      Constitution places it in Congress, 244;
    why not clothe the President with power to raise taxes, 244;
    it is the same in principle as authorizing the raising of an army and
     giving to the President power to suspend the raising, if necessary, 244;
    a manner of proceeding very objectionable, 244;
    unprecedented measure to reject a bill on its first reading, which
      contains such a variety of propositions, 245;
    intention to destroy the bill, 245;
    were troops ever raised in a different manner?, 245;
    expediency of the measure considered, 245;
    what is our external situation?, 245;
    this motion neither unprecedented nor improper, 246;
    in principle the army should not be raised until the House think
      it necessary, 246;
    objections arise because it is thought the militia will be sufficient
      for defence, 246;
    further considerations, 246;
    the bill delegates Legislative power to the President; objectionable as it
      respects volunteer corps, 246;
    this motion appears like indifference when the people expect
      effective measures, 247;
    extraordinary arguments used, 247;
    this bill sufficient to alarm the House, 247;
    the opposition does not arise from a determination to oppose
      defensive measures, 248;
    opposition to second reading, withdrawn, 248;
    every aid resorted to for pushing forward the scheme of a
      standing army, 273;
    Southern States to be terrified, 273;
    invidious distinctions drawn between the militia and regulars, 273;
    review of services of Southern militia, 273;
    motion lost to strike out 20,000, 274;
    motion to insert 10,000, 274;
    when peace occurs between France and England, the question
      of preparation for war should be determined, and the
      President should have the power during recess of Congress, 275;
    motion carried, 275;
    matter of training and disciplining given to the States, 275;
    amount of appropriation considered, 275;
    call of the House, _note_, 275;
    bill passed, 276.

  _Alien enemies_, bill respecting, considered in committee, 280;
    its provisions, 280;
    too much power to consider President's proclamation as law, 281;
    various amendments proposed, 281;
    debate on, 281;
    seven years proposed as extreme limit of imprisonment of offenders, 282;
    debate on the punishment of harboring offenders, 282;
    crime may amount to high treason, 282;
    it is not a bill to punish crimes, but to provide for the public safety
      in certain cases, 283;
    in case of war with France, all her citizens here would be
      alien enemies, 283;
    only three practicable modes present themselves on this subject, 283;
    these considered, 283;
    ordered to third reading, 284;
    motion to recommit so far as relates to power conferred on
      the President, 284;
    it is grounded on the principle that the President shall have power to do by
      proclamation what ought only to be done by law, 284;
    this point considered, 285;
    bill recommitted, 286;
    bill reported with modifications, 301;
    Senate bill, 301.

  _Instructions to armed vessels, report on_, considered, 286;
    motion to make the order for "to-morrow," 286;
    our vessels are seized by French cruisers every day, and
      decision required, 286;
    report just made, time should be given, 286;
    further debate on the necessity for immediate action, 287;
    copy of the bill, 287;
    motion to make it applicable to all nations, 287;
    this bill a declaration of war, 287;
    bad as our situation is, it is preferable to a state of war, 287;
    further arguments in favor of making the bill general, 288;
    propriety and justness of the bill, 288;
    vigorous measures called for, 288;
    objects of France, 288;
    to incense our foes only aggravates our misfortunes, 289;
    our treaties with Great Britain and Spain, 289;
    question negatived, 289;
    bill going to third reading, 290;
    reason for dissent, 290;
    ordered, 290;
    debate on the day for the passage of the bill, 291;
    do. passed, 291.

  _Marine corps, proposal to organize_, 292;
    debate thereon, 292;
    agreed to, 292.

  _Letters of Marque_, resolutions relative to, considered, 296;
    motion to refer to a committee to report a bill, 296;
    this course will shut out all hopes of a favorable termination
      of the dispute, 297;
    return of commissioners, 297;
    great difference between committing and agreeing to adopt a resolution, 297;
    negotiations not in a good train unless we pay the tribute
      France demands, 297;
    should be acted upon at once, otherwise the foreign nations will have
      notice to seize our vessels, 297;
    the reference will look like a challenge, 297;
    no good to be derived from a vote on this subject, 298;
    prospects of the negotiation, 298;
    all has been done for the defence of commerce which we can
      conveniently do, why then proceed to extreme measures?, 298;
    no good purpose answered by postponement of the resolutions, 299;
    this contrasted with former propositions, 299;
    Congress has acted with promptitude without taking this measure, 299;
    what measures have been adopted?, 299;
    nothing to expect from France without tribute, 300;
    question negatived, 300;
    postponement for two weeks moved, 300;
    debate, 300;
    carried, 300.

  _Bill to encourage the capture of French armed vessels_ by vessels of citizens
      of United States, read third time, 319;
    a bounty on guns brought in, according to their size, 319;
    of no use, 319;
    bill passed, 319;
    resolution for a bounty offered, 320;
    negatived, 320;
    similar bill negatived at previous session again considered, 358;
    carried in committee, 358;
    in House, on striking out first section, debate, 358;
    manner of evading laws for suspending intercourse explained, 359;
    present and former situation of the country, 359;
    bill may lead to difficulties, 359;
    bill of questionable advantage as regards privateers, 359;
    strengthen our Minister, 359;
    further debate on propriety of the measure, 360, 361;
    effect of measures of two last sessions, 362;
    further debate on, 363;
    bill rejected, 364.

  _Power of retaliation, bill vesting_ in the President, considered, 385;
    nature of the bill, 385;
    gives President power of life and death over every Frenchman in
      the country, 385;
    three arguments used for the bill, 385;
    these considered, 385;
    further debate, 386, 387, 388;
    bill passed, 388.

_Delaware_, vote for President, 62, 487.

_Delegates_ from Territories, _see Index_, vol. 1.

DENNIS, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 120, 180, 327, 501, 569, 693;
  on tax on lawyers, 156;
  on weekly license to distillers, 195;
  on petition of free blacks, 438;
  on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 526;
  on the apportionment bill, 575;
  against abolishing the mint, 695;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 736.

DENT, GEORGE, Representative from Maryland, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497;
  on compensation of President and other officers, 66;
  presides in Committee of whole House, 121, 123, 129;
  presides in Committee of Whole, 189, 195;
  on the law of retaliation, 385.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Despatches_ of American ministers at Paris, _see France_, relations with.

DEXTER, SAMUEL, Senator from Massachusetts, 400;
  on disputed Presidential elections, 406.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

DICKSON, JOSEPH, Representative from N. Carolina, 429, 497.

DICKSON, WILLIAM, Representative from Tennessee, 569, 693.

_Diplomatic or Foreign Intercourse_, considered, 198;
  various sums proposed to fill the blanks, 199;
  a good time to bring back the establishment of a diplomatic corps to
      the footing settled at the outset of our Government, 199;
  tendency of our Government to consolidation in the Executive, 199;
  Legislature must resist, 199;
  this extension of influence of one department over another guarded in the
      constitution, 199;
  more beneficial to have no ministers at all, 199;
  object of motion to reduce this department, 199;
  its former state, 199;
  this no new doctrine, 200;
  danger of Executive influence has always been held up, 200;
  these doctrines are advanced because the views of the gentlemen are
      opposed by the measures of the Government, 200;
  appropriations made, 200;
  a small faction exists who wish to demolish the Government, 200;
  our foreign political intercourse in distinction from commercial
      intercourse, the subject to be considered, 200;
  what has been done hitherto, 201;
  our political intercourse greatly extended and from this comes the
      present crisis, 201;
    the constitution and laws have made certain offices
      necessary and left it to the Executive to fill them, and
      shall the House attempt to control this discretion?, 201;
  propriety of removing persons of opposite political sentiments, 202;
  has the Legislature nothing to do with the diplomatic establishment but
      to provide the money?, 202;
  origin of the law, 202;
  progress of our diplomatic intercourse, 202;
  necessary at this time that our ministers should remain as they are, 203;
  thus to change it would be forcing upon the Executive a measure contrary
      to his wishes, 203;
  object of the bill to limit extension of Executive power, 203;
  the Legislature can only settle the salaries of ministers and not
      determine their number, &c., 204;
  the motion reduces the number and salaries of ministers, as unnecessary,
      but the Executive thinks otherwise, 204;
  the constitutionality, the expediency, and the inconvenience of the measure
      considered, 204;
  further debate, 205; _note_, 216;
  discussion on filling the blanks, 216.

_Direct Tax Law._--Difficulty of Commissioners in Pennsylvania, 433.
  _See Taxes._

_Disbursement of Public Moneys_, report of committee considered, 656;
  four navy yards were purchased without authority, and the money
      misapplied which was paid for them, 656;
  facts which gave rise to the purchase, 656;
  the law which directs a thing to be done authorizes the agents to do
      every thing necessary for accomplishing the object, 656;
  letter of the Secretary explains the purchase, 657;
  report does not notice some extensive stores erected by the present
      administration, 657;
  a doubtful expenditure the minority think, 657;
  proceedings of committee relative to the navy yards, 657;
  Secretary's letter was addressed to committee and not to the House,
      hence it was not inserted in the report, 658;
  the purchase of the yards, 658;
  explanation, 658;
  further explanation, 659.

_Distilled Spirits._--_See Taxes._

_District of Columbia_, bill in relation to, considered, 518;
  moved to strike out first section, continuing in force law of Maryland and
      Virginia, in respective portions, 518;
  question if the existing laws are in force, and this bill to
      obviate all doubt, 518;
  jurisdiction a power that may or may not be exercised by Congress, 519;
  design of bill to cure evil arising from doubtful jurisdiction of Maryland and
      Virginia, 519;
  a difference of opinion seemed to exist as to the period when the
      powers of the States were superseded, 520;
  dilemma of the inhabitants, 520;
  construction contended for will disfranchise them, 520;
  reasons for the committee rising, 520;
  further debate, 521;
  motion to postpone the bill, 523;
  object to try the sense of the House, whether they were determined
      to assume the jurisdiction or not, 523;
  passage of the bill will deprive the citizens of their political, if not civil
      rights, 523;
  the people of the District ask the House to assume the jurisdiction, 523;
  to refuse it would be to insult them, 523;
  views of the inhabitants, 524;
  quarter from whence the opposition comes, 524;
  by the act jurisdiction commences with the occupation, 524;
  laws of the States in force until otherwise enacted by Congress, 525;
  the Legislature will not be satisfied without assuming the jurisdiction, 525;
  do members still wish to leave the subject in doubt?, 525;
  motion to postpone withdrawn, 526;
  moved to strike out first section, 526;
  impossible to preserve the rights of the people by the passage
      of the bill, 526;
  their judges and Governor will be the choice of the President, 526;
  interests of the people require the passage of the bill, 526;
  no necessity at present for the law, 527;
  other considerations, 527;
  details of the bill, examined, 527;
  motion negatived, 528;
  other amendments proposed, 528;
  bill reported for Territorial Government, 592;
  referred, 592;
  remonstrance, 592;
  resolutions on the retrocessions of jurisdiction to Virginia and
      Maryland, 736;
  restore the people to their former condition, 736;
  no advantage to retain the jurisdiction, 736;
  its exercise will take up a great deal of time and great expense, 736;
  it was prudent not to change until experience proved its inconvenience, 736;
  all the advantages of exclusive jurisdiction will be lost by the passage
      of the resolution, 737;
  no constitutional power exists enabling Congress to recede the Territory, 737;
  if receded, what obligation is there in Congress to remain here?, 738;
  the contract can be done away only by the unanimous consent of
      all the parties, 738;
  if we had power to accept, we had power to recede, 738;
  Congress possess the right with the assent of these two States to recede, 739;
  constitutional points considered, 739;
  further debate, 740;
  resolutions lost, 741;
  _note_, 741.

DUANE, WILLIAM, proceedings against, in Senate, 423, 424, 425;
  letter to Senate, 425.

_Dumb Legislature, A_, 591.

_Duties on Imports_, proposition to increase duties, considered, 71.

  _Brown Sugar_, an eligible article for increased duty, 71;
    its consumption not to be decreased, 71;
    falls more upon the poor than on the rich, 71;
    rise of labor must follow increase of duty on it, 71;
    present duty one and a half cent per pound, an additional half cent not much
difference to consumer, 71;
    a necessary of life, already too high, 71;
    moved to amend by one cent per gallon to molasses, 72;
    only way to secure duty on sugar was by advancing duty on molasses, 72;
    one advance on sugar will pave the way for others, 72;
    amendment moved to defeat increased duty, 73;
    amendment carried, 74;
    amended motion carried, 74.

  _Salt_, additional duty of five cents moved, 74;
    at a lower rate of duty now than in other countries, 74;
    duty not easily evaded, 74;
    tax laid heavily on salt because of all necessaries this most
      easily collected, 74;
    operates as a poll tax, 74;
    a tax on agriculture, 74;
    article high now, 75;
    an unequal and odious tax, 75;
    objections would be good if it was proposed to raise the whole revenue
      from it, or substitute it for a land tax, 75;
    the high price not occasioned by a duty, 75;
    question lost, 75;
    eight cents adopted in committee, 163;
    salt tax as compared with license and stamp tax, 163; _note_, 163;
    a salt tax the most unequal tax in its operation, 163;
    oppressive to certain parts of the Union and no way affecting others, 163;
    amendment with regard to drawback proposed, 163;
    debate thereon, 163;
    this small advance cannot operate oppressively, 164;
    shall this necessary of life be called on for every thing
      Government wants?, 164;
    discontent already arisen, 164;
    question decided in affirmative, 164;
    motion to strike out all relating to drawback to fishing vessels, 164;
    the amount allowed is too large, 164;
    debate thereon, 164;
    motion lost, 164;
    33-1/3 per cent. fixed, 164;
    limitation clause for two years adopted, 164;
    bill passed, 164.

  _In Committee_--twenty per cent. additional duty on wine adopted, 477;
    two and a half per centum on all merchandise subject to ten per cent. duty
      adopted, 477;
    additional duty of one and a half per cent. on brown sugar rejected, 478;
    two and a half per cent. drawback allowed additional on all re-exports, 478;
    resolution instructing Committee on Ways and Means to report on propriety of
      reducing duties on certain articles, considered, 591;
    articles of first necessity and paid highest duty, 591;
    certain members have pledged themselves for repealing all internal
      taxes, 591;
    further remarks, question lost, 592.
    _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Duties on Tonnage._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Duties, Stamp_, on vellum parchment and paper, bill for 149.
  _See Taxes, Direct and Indirect._


E

EARLY, PETER, Representative from Georgia, 712.

EDMOND, WILLIAM, Representative from Connecticut, 179, 327, 429, 497;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 187;
  on abrogation of the treaty with France, 315;
  on the law of retaliation, 385;
  on petition of free blacks, 440.

EGGLESTON, JOSEPH, Representative from Virginia, 326, 501, 473.

EGE, GEORGE, Representative from Pennsylvania, 120.

_Elections_, military interference with, 446.

_Elections Presidential_, disputed, _see President's election disputed_.

_Election of President._--House and Senate proceedings, 530, 531;
  do. proceedings of the House as prescribed by Constitution, 531;
  repeated ballotings, 531, 532, 533;
  Thomas Jefferson elected, 533;
  _note_, 533.

_Electors_ of President, _see Index_, vol. 1.

ELLERY, CHRISTOPHER, Senator from Rhode Island, 540, 661.

ELLSWORTH, OLIVER, vote for, as President, 1796, 63.

ELMENDORPH, LUCAS, Representative from New York, 120, 179, 326, 429, 447,
      569, 694.

ELMER, EBENEZER, Representative from New Jersey, 569, 693.

_Enemies, Alien._--_See Alien Enemies._

_Estimate for Appropriations_, for treaty with Cherokees, 198;
  on a monument for Washington, 479.

EUSTIS, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 569, 694;
  on protection against the Barbary powers, 571;
  on repeal of internal taxes, 579;
  in favor of relief for French spoliations, 645;
  on compensation to the ex-United States Judges, 730;
  on French spoliations, 735;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 740.

EVANS, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 327, 429, 497.

_Executive Departments._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Expatriation._--A bill prohibiting citizens of the United States from entering
      any foreign military or naval service, considered, 149;
  motion to strike out section defining mode by which a citizen of the
      United States may dissolve ties of citizenship and become alien, 149;
  principle wrong, especially at this time, 149;
  men have a natural right to choose under what government they will live, 150;
  the right of expatriation should be allowed unclogged, 150;
  a man born and educated in a country owes obligations not easily
      shaken off, 150;
  doctrine of perpetual allegiance derived from Great Britain; bad
      in practice, 150;
  expatriation the opinion of the country, and now the time to declare it, 150;
  objections considered, 150;
  further debate, 151;
  if a right of expatriation exists, there should be some mode of
      exercising it, 151;
  the case of Talbot, 151;
  perpetual allegiance absurd, 151;
  right recognized by Executive and Judiciary, 151;
  unnecessary to consider it, 151;
  motion to agree to report lost, 152;
  further consideration postponed, 152.


F

FEARING, PAUL, Representative from N. W. Territory, 569, 693;
  on Ohio State Government, 648, 650, 651;
  unseated as delegate from Territory of Ohio, 726.

FINDLAY, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 135, 326;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 73;
  on increase of duties on salt, 75;
  on temporary direct tax, 271.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Flag of the United States._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

FOSTER, ABIEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429,
      497, 569, 693.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

FOSTER, DWIGHT, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120, 180, 326, 429;
  presents petition of Thomas Carpenter, 185;
  on temporary direct tax, 270;
  Senator from Massachusetts, 481, 544, 663.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

FOSTER, THEODORE, Senator from Rhode Island, 5, 113, 165, 321, 399, 481, 540,
      661.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

FOWLER, JOHN, Representative from Kentucky, 139, 193, 436, 522, 569.

_France, Relations with._--President's message considered, 225;
  painful differences exist between this country and the French Republic, 225;
  the House should declare whether we are to have peace or war, 225;
  resolutions that it is inexpedient to go to war with
     France--that the arming of merchant vessels should be
     restricted--that provision should be made for protection of
     the sea-coast and interior, offered, 225;
  not a suitable time for a declaration of sentiment of first resolutions, 225;
  our situation better than it was twenty-three years ago, 225;
  verbal amendments proposed, 226;
  intention of the resolution, 226;
  now is the time to declare whether the country shall remain at peace
      or go to war, 227;
  the state of things calls for this declaration, 227;
  Legislature should determine whether they immediately mean to go
      to war or not, 227;
  defensive war always ready to undertake, 228;
  though we value peace, we are ready to resist insult and injury, 228;
  extent of defensive measures should now be decided on, 228;
  proceedings of France amount to a declaration, 229;
  to say we are not at war is no more than to say it is light when the
      sun shines, 229;
  to agree to the proposition would countenance the French assertion
      that we are a divided people, 229;
  the time has come when a stand should be made, 229;
  review of the past, 229;
  arguments in favor considered, 230;
  arguments of opposers examined, 230;
  the question very unimportant, 230;
  important time lost in discussing it, 230;
  it is a question of peace or war, 232;
  to strike out words "French Republic" proposed, 232;
  resolution unnecessary and uncommon, 232;
  this country is now the passive party, and any declaration on our
      part would have little effect, 232;
  our course with Great Britain, 233;
  the course of France, 232;
  instance of Venice, 233;
  ready to engage in a defensive but not offensive war, 234;
  a disposition on the part of the House and Government for war, 234;
  apprehension of war already produced effects in some parts
      of the country, 234;
  the resistance to the amendment shows the intention is to say to France,
      "You may commit against us injury after injury, we will not
       resent it," 234;
  peace and war are not in our power, 234;
  the movers of amendment exposed, 235;
  their intentions abject submission to France, 235;
  those now so loud for peace, heretofore supporters of war, shown, 235;
  example of the Swiss, 236;
  reply to objections, 236, 237;
  House obliged to act in the dark, 237;
  effect of French decree, 238;
  services of members as soldiers, 238;
  further debate, 239;
  Treaty of Pilnitz a forgery, 239;
  further debate, 240;
  resolution calling upon the President for papers, 241;
  debate thereon, 241, 242;
  subject postponed, 242.

  _Commercial intercourse with France._--Bill for suspending debate
      on its final passage, 292;
    no reason has been assigned for this bill, 292;
    effects of the bill, 293;
    effects on French commerce, 293;
    object to distress France and French West Indies, 293;
    its operation, 294;
    objections examined, 294;
    further debate, 295;
    bill passed, 295.

  Resolutions relative to relations with France, offered, 296.

  _Bill to abrogate the treaty between France and the United States_, 310;
    best to declare what is the state of the country, 310;
    the proper question to be considered, 310;
    bill from the Senate not taken up, but resolution for a committee to
      report on the state of the country, 311;
    debate on the reference, 311;
    the resolution an unmeaning thing, 311;
    question negatived, 312;
    bill from Senate again taken up and read, 312;
    amendment moved and carried, relative to enacting clause, 313;
    debate on amendments, 313;
    is a violation of the treaties on the part of France sufficient
      ground for our setting them aside?, 314;
    no proof that our claims have been refused, 314;
    further explanation of views, 315;
    preamble adopted and bill passed, 316.

  _Bill suspending commercial intercourse_ with France returned amended by the
      Senate to the House, motion to postpone, 320;
    amendments considered, 320;
    bill passed, 320.

  _Bill to suspend intercourse with France and open it with St. Domingo_,
      considered, 334;
    section three, providing for intercourse with St. Domingo, debated, 334;
    strange proposition, 335;
    our non-intercourse affects the mother country, and it is proposed to
      relax it by way of the colonies, 335;
    or to negotiate with French agents in the colonies, and thus
      encourage rebellion and usurpation, 335;
    these agents independent of the decrees of France, 335;
    they may carry on commerce with this country even if at open war
      with France, 335;
    statement of the relation of affairs, 336;
    objects of this bill twofold, 337;
    reason for the passage of the bill at the last session, 337;
    weakness now to recede, 337;
    measures proposed are justifiable only in a state of war, 337;
    the question, 337;
    various reasons for the section in the bill, 338, 339;
    review of the relations between France and her colonies, 399; _note_, 399;
    advantages of commerce with Hispaniola, 340;
    this bill will authorize the President to negotiate with subordinate
      agents of a government against the will of that government, 341;
    it might produce war, 341;
    important considerations urged, 341;
    this measure is not so obnoxious as to be considered by France a
      cause of war, 342;
    consequences of the independence of St. Domingo, 342;
    the amendment changes the principle of the bill, 343;
    examination of the effects of the amendment, 343;
    if any part of the French dominions cease to depredate on our
      commerce, we might open intercourse with them, 344;
    the ground upon which we stand, 344;
    design of the amendment to take away the objection that the bill
      was calculated to promote independence of St. Domingo, 345;
    extent of the amendment, 345;
    further debate, 346;
    amendment negatived, 347;
    amendment proposed relative to part of New Orleans, 347;
    bill passed, 347.

  French edict relative to neutrals; call for information
      respecting its suspension, 356;
    answer of the President, 357;
    motion to print discussed, 357.

  _Despatches of American Ministers._--_Note_, as an appendix to debates of
      Fifth Congress, 389;
    extract of a letter from Mr. Pinckney to the Secretary of State, 389;
    ditto to M. De la Croix, 390;
    report of Major Rutledge on the interview with M. De la Croix, 390;
    further report, 391;
    notification from M. De la Croix to General Pinckney, 392;
    reply of General Pinckney, 392;
    remarks of General Pinckney, 392;
    interview with Talleyrand, 392;
    proceedings of Talleyrand's agents, 393, 394, 395, 396;
    letter of General Pinckney to the Secretary of State, 397;
    remarks on the disavowal of Talleyrand, 397;
    members of the Directory, 398.

FRANKLIN, JESSE, Representative from North Carolina, 14;
  Senator from North Carolina, 404, 541, 661.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

FREEMAN, JONATHAN, Representative from New Hampshire, 120, 180, 326, 429,
      497;
  on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 129.

FREEMAN, NATHANIEL, Jr., Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_French Refugees._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_French Republic_, ratification of Convention with, 492.

_French Spoliations._--Resolution that provision be made for indemnification for
      losses sustained by French spoliations, considered, 642;
  the principle must be decided by the House, 643;
  the resolution so broad as to defeat its object, 643;
  it goes to commit the House to the whole extent without any examination, 643;
  reasons for speedy action, 643;
  object of the resolution to place the question in a train for decision, 643;
  it is founded on the principle that Government has abandoned
     the claim, so that no citizen can come forward against the
     French Government, or any French citizen, 643;
  further debate, 644;
  a large portion of the losses so covered by insurance, the Government
      will not have to pay them, 645;
  further debate, 646;
  motion to postpone lost, 647;
  report made, 655;
  further remarks, 726;
  resolution, 727;
  amendments proposed, 732;
  lost, 732;
  discussion on calling yeas and nays on taking up for reference the original
      resolution, 732;
  referred, 733;
  a question of great moment, 733;
  debate on postponement, 733, 734;
  motion to take up, 743;
  lost, 744.

_Friends or Quakers_, memorial of, 182;
  report on, 209.

_Frontiers, Protection of._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Fugitives from justice._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Furniture_ for President's House, _see Appropriations_.


G

GALLATIN, ALBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429;
  on the address to the President, 32;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 52, 54;
  on naval policy, 68;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 71, 72, 73;
  on increase of duties on salt, 74;
  on naval appropriations, 78;
  on direct and indirect taxes, 82;
  on limitation period relative to claims against United States, 85;
  on suability of the States, 86;
  on the accommodation of the President, 92;
  on military and naval appropriations, 93, 94, 95, 98, 106;
  on naval appropriations, 100, 104, 105;
  proposes resolutions relative to statements from War Department, 105;
  on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 140;
  on resolutions relative to defensive measures, 144, 146;
  on arming merchant vessels, 147;
  on expatriation, 151;
  on a naval armament, 153;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 158, 160, 161;
  proposes composition with banks in lieu of tax, 162;
  on additional duty on salt, 163, 164;
  offers proviso against increase in bounties to fishermen, 163;
  on address to the President, 182;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 184;
  against weekly licenses to distillers, 194;
  on naval expenditure, 197;
  on foreign intercourse, 200, 204;
  on the report on the Griswold and Lyon case, 215, 216;
  on the limits of Georgia, 223;
  on relations with France, 229;
  on a provisional army, 243, 247;
  on establishing the Navy Department, 248;
  on military appropriations, 252, 253;
  to postpone consideration of naturalization laws, 260;
  on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 264;
  on a temporary direct tax, 266;
  on the classes to be excluded from citizenship, 277, 278;
  on bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 282, 284;
  on the consideration of the bill relative to the protection of commerce, 290;
  on intercourse with France, 293;
  relative to letters of marque, 298;
  on direct taxes, 302;
  on alien enemies, 305;
  on the sedition bill, 308;
  on the abrogation of the treaty with France, 311, 312, 315;
  on intercourse with France and St. Domingo, 337, 343, 345;
  on increase of the navy, 348;
  on the capture of French vessels, 359;
  on repeal of alien and sedition laws, 365;
  on the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 370;
  on repeal of alien law, 373;
  on the law of retaliation, 385;
  on petition of free blacks, 440, 444;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 449, 452, 455.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GANTT, Rev. Mr., elected chaplain to the Senate, 544, 694.

GATES, proposal for a monument to, 725.

_Georgia_, vote for President, 62, 487.

_Georgia limits._--_See Territories._

_Georgia, remonstrance of_, report of committee on, 331;
  compensation recommended, 331;
  points of the remonstrance, 331;
  comparative expenditure in defending northern and southern frontiers from
      depredations of Indians, 332;
  amended resolution proposed, 348;
  carried, 348;
  report on, 537.

_German language, laws in_, motion to print, 165;
  reason for the motion, 165;
  if a translation was authorized, great mischiefs might ensue, 165.

GERRY, ELBRIDGE, letter from Paris, 304.--_See Index_, vol. 1

GILBERT, EZEKIEL, Representative from New York, 14;
  on the address to the President, 32;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 59;
  on military and naval appropriations, 107.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GILES, WM. B., Representative from Virginia, 17, 120, 569;
  on the address to the President, 17, 21, 23, 27, 32;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 43;
  on answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 124, 137;
  on resolution relative to defensive measures, 144, 146;
  on expatriation, 151-152;
  on a naval armament, 154;
  on tax on lawyers, 156;
  on the Griswold and Lyon case, 214;
  on the limits of Georgia, 223;
  on relations with France, 227, 232, 234, 236, 240, 241;
  on protection against the Barbary powers, 571;
  on apportionment bill, 573;
  on the Mediterranean trade, 586;
  in favor of repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 603;
  on Ohio State Government, 648, 649, 650.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GILLESPIE, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 16, 120, 189.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GILMAN, NICHOLAS, Representative from New Hampshire, 14.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GLENN, HENRY, Representative from New York, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GODDARD, CALVIN, Representative from Connecticut, 569, 693;
  on call for information relative to cession of Louisiana, 705, 718.

GOODE, SAMUEL, Representative from Virginia, 433;
  on petition of free blacks, 442.

GOODHUE, BENJAMIN, Senator from Massachusetts, 3, 113, 165, 321, 399.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GOODRICH, CHAUNCEY, Representative from Connecticut, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429,
505;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 53.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GOODRICH, ELIZUR, Representative from Connecticut, 429, 497.

GORDON, WILLIAM, Representative from New Hampshire, 121, 180, 326, 429;
  on duties on naturalization certificates, 155;
  on the Quakers' Memorial, 180;
  against weekly licenses to distillers, 194;
  on the Georgia limits, 221, 222;
  on abrogation of treaty with France, 313.

GRAY, EDWIN, Representative from Virginia, 498, 569, 694.

_Great Britain_, retaliatory measures upon, _see Index_, vol. 1.

GREEN, ASHBEL, appointed chaplain to the House, 169.

GREEN, THOMAS M., delegate from Mississippi Territory, 693.

GREENE, RAY, Senator from Rhode Island, 165, 321, 485;
  resigns his seat in Senate, 491.

GREENUP, CHRISTOPHER, Representative from Kentucky, 14;
  on land for Canadian Refugees, 45.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GREGG, ANDREW, Representative from Pennsylvania, 17, 121, 188, 429, 498, 570,
      693;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 738.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GRISWOLD, ROGER, Representative from Connecticut, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429,
      497, 569, 693;
  on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 131;
  against weekly licenses to distillers, 194;
  assault on Matthew Lyon, 209;
  Griswold and Lyon, case of, _see Breach of Privilege_.
  On mausoleum to Washington, 503;
  on reporting the debates, 508;
  on ratio of representation, 572;
  on public printing, 573;
  on Georgia limits, 577;
  on Mediterranean Trade, 585;
  on the collection of international revenue, 588;
  on French spoliations, 642, 644;
  on Ohio State Government, 650;
  on unauthorized purchase of navy yards, 656;
  on the call for papers relative to the cession of Louisiana to
      France by Spain, 698, 700, 703, 705, 713, 714;
  on petitions of United States Judges, 728.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GROVE, WILLIAM BARRY, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 121, 179, 502,
      581, 696.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

GUNN, JAMES, Senator from Georgia, 3, 119, 165, 321, 398.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.


H

HANCOCK, GEORGE, Representative from Virginia, 44.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

HANGING MAW, petition of widow of, 96.

HANNA, JOHN ANDRE, Representative from Pennsylvania, 120, 180, 326, 429, 498,
      569, 694.

HARPER, ROBERT G., Representative from South Carolina, 121, 179, 326, 429, 498;
  on a national university, 35;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 41;
  on petition of Hugh L. White, 49;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 53;
  on naval policy, 68;
  on increase of duties on salt, 74-75;
  on suability of the States, 86, 88;
  on naval appropriations, 105;
  on liberation of La Fayette, 110;
  on military and naval appropriations, 107;
  on defensive measures, 147;
  on a naval establishment, 154;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 160;
  on additional duty on salt, 164;
  on the Quakers' Memorial, 183;
  on the expenditure for the naval service, 195;
  on relief to daughters of Count de Grasse, 195;
  on appropriation for foreign intercourse, 200, 204;
  on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 211, 215;
  on diplomatic intercourse, 216;
  on the limits of Georgia, 218, 221;
  moves amendment relative to importation of slaves in Mississippi
      Territory, 224, _note_, 224;
  on relations with France, 226, 234, 239;
  on a provisional army, 245;
  on establishing the Navy Department, 250;
  on the naturalization laws, 253, 254;
  against taking new census before laying direct tax, 265;
  relative to letters of marque, 297;
  on the sedition bill, 306, 308;
  on abrogation of treaty with France, 315;
  on intercourse with France, 320, 336, 345;
  on increase of the navy, 351;
  on relations with France, 356;
  on the capture of French vessels, 360;
  on petitions relative to repeal of alien and sedition laws, 364;
  asks leave to bring in a bill to amend direct tax law, 433;
  on petition of free blacks, 439;
  on the case of Jonathan Bobbins, 451, 454;
  on admirals in the navy, 474;
  for a mausoleum to Washington, 513, 516, 517;
  on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 520, 521.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

HARRISON, CARTER B., Representative from Virginia, 14, 120, 180, 329;
  advocates weekly licenses to distillers, 194.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

HARRISON, WILLIAM HENRY, Representative from North West Territory, 430;
  credentials referred to committee, 432.

HARTLEY, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 11, 120, 179, 329;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 40, 41, 42, 43;
  on lands for Canadian refugees, 44;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 55;
  on the compensation of President and other officers, 61;
  on the accommodation of the President, 89;
  on military appropriations, 98, 99;
  on naval appropriations, 100;
  on liberation of La Fayette, 108;
  on answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 141;
  on the limits of Georgia, 223;
  on intercourse with France, 344;
  decease reported to the House, 521.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

HATHORN, JOHN, Representative from New York, 34.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

HAVENS, JONATHAN N., Representative from New York, 14, 120, 179, 326.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

HASTINGS, SETH, Representative from Massachusetts, 693.

HEATH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 14;
  on the address to the President, 20;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58;
  on the accommodation of the President, 89, 90;
  on military and naval appropriations, 106;
  on liberation of Lafayette, 109.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

HEISTER, DANIEL, Representative from Maryland, 694

HEISTER, JOSEPH, Representative from Pennsylvania, 188, 429, 497, 569, 693.

HELMS, WILLIAM, Representative from New Jersey, 569, 693.

HEMPHILL, JOSEPH, Representative from Pennsylvania, 569, 693;
  on call for information relative to cession of Louisiana, 704.

HENDERSON, ARCHIBALD, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 120, 179, 429,
      498, 569, 694;
  on the accommodation of the President, 88, 92;
  against the repeal of the Judiciary Establishment, 597.

HENDERSON, PLEASANT, claim to certain lands, 518.

HENRY, JOHN, Senator from Maryland, 3, 117;
  vote for, as President in 1796, 63.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

HILL, WILLIAM H., Representative from North Carolina, 429, 500, 570, 696;
  on petition of free blacks, 438;
  on reporting the debates, 501.

HILLHOUSE, JAMES, Senator from Connecticut, 3, 118, 171, 323, 399, 481, 544,
      664;
  elected President of Senate _pro tem._, 488.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

HINDMAN, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 14, 120, 179, 327.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

HOBART, JOHN SLOSS, Senator from New York, 171;
  resigns, 172.

HOGE, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 569, 693.

HOLLAND, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 570, 693;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 59;
  on increase of duties, 71, 74;
  on increase of duties on salt, 75;
  on the accommodation of the President, 90;
  on naval appropriations, 100.

HOLMES, DAVID, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569,
      693;
  on printing the laws in the German language, 165.

HOSMER, HEZEKIAH L., Representative from New York, 120, 179, 326.

_House_, secret session of, 79;
  adjourns at close of fourth Congress, 111;
  answer to President Adams' first message, 123;
  answer as delivered to President Adams' first message, 143;
  answer to President's message, 180;
  answer to President's message to third session, fifth Congress, 329;
  _note_ on, 330;
  address in answer to President's message, 431;
  thanks to General Lee for eulogium on memory of Washington, 436;
  refuses to accompany Senate to hear eulogium on Washington, 447;
  answer to President's message second session, sixth Congress, 499;
  proceedings relative to purchase of Louisiana, 721;
  tenders thanks to Speaker Macon, 744.

HOWARD, JOHN E., Senator from Maryland, 6, 114, 171, 323, 403, 481, 540, 661;
  chosen President of Senate _pro tem._, 481.

HUGER, BENJAMIN, Representative from South Carolina, 572, 694;
  for a mausoleum to Washington, 516;
  on collection of internal revenue, 588;
  on call for papers relative to cession of Louisiana, 699, 719;
  on considering the French spoliations, 733;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 736.

HUNT, SAMUEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 693.

HUNTER, JOHN, Senator from South Carolina, 6, 114.

HUNTER, NARSWORTHY, Delegate from Mississippi, 569;
  decease of, 640.


I

IMLAY, JAMES H., Representative from New Jersey, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497.

_Impressment of Seamen_, message in relation to, 333.

_Imprisonment for debt._--Bill making provision for relief of persons, passed,
      479;
  particulars of bill, 479;
  resolution to revise the laws, offered, 593;
  object, to secure debtor his property and provide some remedy beside
      imprisonment, 593;
  considerations against imprisonment urged, 593.

_Inaugural Address_ of John Adams, 11;
  of Thomas Jefferson, 490.

_Indian Lands_ within a State, rights over, _see Index_, vol. 1.

_Indian Trading Houses._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Intercourse with France._--_See France, relations with._

IREDELL, JAMES, vote for as President in 1796, 63.


J

JACKSON, ANDREW, Representative from Tennessee, 14;
  first appearance in National Councils, 48;
  _note_, 48;
  on petition of Hugh Lawson White, 48, 49;
  presents petition of George Colbert, 49;
  Senator from Tennessee, 165;
  resigns as Senator, 321.

JACKSON, GEORGE, Representative from Virginia, 14, 429, 497, 569, 693;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 53;
  on the Judiciary Establishment, 552;
  on resolutions relative to the navigation of the Mississippi, 678.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

JACKSON, JAMES, Senator from Georgia, 541.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

JARVIS, JAMES, officer on frigate Constellation, 470.

JAY, JOHN, vote for as President, 63, 487.

JEFFERSON, THOMAS, his address as President of the Senate, 10; _note_, 10;
  vote for as President in 1796, 62;
  Vice President and President of Senate, 113, 171, 323;
  Vice President attends Senate, 404, 484;
  vote for as President, 487;
  address on retiring from Senate, 488;
  inauguration as President, 490;
  address, 490;
  answer to notification of the House of his election, 535;
  letter to President of Senate, 541; _note_, 541;
  views on slavery, an obstacle to his receiving the vote of South Carolina for
      President, 636.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

JOHNSON, CHARLES, Representative from North Carolina, 569.

JOHNSTON, SAMUEL, vote for as President in 1796, 63.

JONES, JAMES, Representative from Georgia, 429, 501;
  on petition of free blacks, 439, 443;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 456;
  on the apportionment bill, 574.

JONES, WALTER, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 327.

JONES, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 569, 723.

_Judiciary System_, bill to amend a previous act establishing judicial courts,
      419;
  ordered to second reading, 419;
  numerous reasons for the introduction of the bill, 420;
  parts of the bill, 427;
  bill passed to third reading, 427; _note_, 427.

  _In the Senate_, part of message relating to Judiciary system, read, 545;
    motion that the act of last session respecting the Judiciary
      Establishment be repealed, 546; _note_, 546;
    motion debated, 546;
    1st. the law is unnecessary and improper--2d. the judges and
      courts created by it, can, and ought to be abolished, 546;
    existing courts, competent and able to discharge duties, 546;
    such was the case when the law passed, 546;
    amount of business before the courts, 546;
    suits decreasing, 546;
    United States never need thirty-eight federal judges, 547;
    limit to federal judicial powers, 547;
    power of Congress to put down these additional courts and judges,
      examined, 547;
    may be abolished as well as created under the constitution, 547;
    a judge cannot hold his office after it is abolished, 548;
    once a judge always a judge, examined, 548;
    one of the most important questions ever before a Legislature, 548;
    what says the constitution?, 548;
    judges _hold_ during good behavior, 548;
    their compensation as prescribed, designed to preserve their existence, 549;
    motion unconstitutional, 549;
    the ancient system stated, 549;
    if you repeal so far as regards these judges, you may for all, 550;
    thereby you destroy the check provided in the constitution, 550;
    all power is not vested in the Legislature, 550;
    constitutional power, 550;
    words _shall_ and _may_, 550;
    more afraid of an army of judges than an army of soldiers, 552;
    it is said the law which creates a judge cannot be touched, 552;
    the moment it is passed it exists to the end of time, 552;
    the power to alter the system rests here, or nowhere, 552;
    extent of our country, 553;
    tendency of acts of late administration, 553;
    history of legislative proceedings in the formation of the
      Judiciary system, 553;
    is this system so vicious as to deserve nothing but abhorrence?, 554;
    the letter and spirit of the constitution against the repeal, 555;
    Judicial Department should be independent, 555;
    but not independent of the nation itself, 555;
    what are the facts?, 555;
    if a court once established, cannot be vacated, the greatest
      absurdities follow, 556;
    the judges of Mississippi Territory, 556;
    further remarks on the independence of the Judiciary, 557;
    the expediency of repealing the law considered, 557;
    shall we restore to the people their former courts? is the
      true question, 558;
    defects of the present system, 559;
    reasons for the repeal insufficient, 560;
    the expediency of the repeal examined, 560, 561;
    the constitutional point examined, 562;
    repeal needed as a precedent, 562;
    our government a system of salutary checks, 563;
    constitutional point further examined, 563, 564, 565;
    bill passed, 565; _note_, 565.

  _In the House_, resolutions offered in committee relative to the Judiciary
      considered, 581;
    resolutions agreed to, 581;
    motion to refer to committee, 581;
    remarks on reference, 581;
    resolutions referred, 583;
    bill from the Senate to repeal considered in House, 596; _note_, 596;
    the people have established three departments for the powers of
      government, 597;
    tenure by which the judges hold office, 597;
    the words "during good behavior" are a limitation on executive
      and legislative power, 597;
    examination of these words, 598;
    a subsequent legislature can repeal the acts of a previous one,
      examined, 598;
    any other construction leads to a concentration of executive and
      legislative power, 598;
    this is the spirit of innovation which has prostrated the old world, 599;
    expediency of the repeal examined, 599;
    comparison of the present and former system, 600;
    constitutionality of the measure examined, 600;
    delegated powers, 601;
    Judiciary is a check on the legislature, shown, 601;
    the judges are expounders of the constitution and laws, 602;
    they ought to be independent of the other branches of government,
      particularly the legislative, 602;
    concentration of power is the essence of tyranny, 602;
    as we advance to it, we recede from liberty, 602;
    what was the intention of the framers in introducing the words
      "good behavior"?, 602;
    origin of parties in this country fundamental, 603;
    manner of growth, 604;
    proceedings of the favorers of patronage, 604;
    the strict letter of the constitution now appealed to, 605;
    will the repeal of this law violate in any respect the salutary or
      practicable independence of the judges, secured by the
      constitution?, 605;
    the terms "independence of the judges" or "Judiciary" not found
      in the constitution, 605;
    relationship between the Executive and Judiciary Departments, 606;
    clauses of the constitution examined, 607, 608, 609;
    are not the judges more independent under this view than those
      of England?, 610;
    it is admitted Congress may increase or diminish the duties of judges, 610;
    preceding arguments for repeal examined in detail, and a defence of the late
      administration, 611, 612, 613, 614;
    inexpediency of the present bill shown by the expediency of the judicial
      law of last session, 617;
    the pre-existing system examined, and its defects and evils, as
      affected by the late act, considered, 617, 618, 619;
    changes made by the late law, 620, 621;
    when did the right of the Executive to recommend modifications of
      the Judiciary system cease, or of Congress to act?, 622;
    former practice with present theory compared, 622;
    doctrine of the Judiciary in Virginia, 623, 624;
    point conceded, 624;
    further debate, 625, 626;
    practice of North Carolina relative to instructions, 627;
    constitution of North Carolina, 627;
    interpretation of the words "during good behavior" there, 627;
    arguments against the bill examined, 628;
    further debate, 629, 630, 631;
    intention of the convention to make the judges independent of both
      executive and legislative power, so universally admitted at the time, 632;
    hence any intrusion or intermeddling by Congress is usurpation, 632;
    what avail are prohibitory clauses in the constitution, if there be no
      power to check Congress and the President?, 632;
    these regulations designed for the safety of the State Governments and the
      liberties of the people, 632;
    but the doctrine urged to-day will sweep away all barriers, 632;
    illustrations given by reference to the constitution, 632;
    expense of the national Judiciary, 633;
    reasons for passing the law of last session, 633;
    influence upon the elections, 633;
    vote at the election in the House, 634; _note_, 634;
    the professed friends of the people, 635;
    course of South Carolina on the Presidential election, 635, 636;
    Jefferson's views on slavery prevented his receiving the vote of
      South Carolina, 636; note, 636;
    what manifestation of the public will was there in reference to
      the late election for President?, 637;
    further debate, 637, 638;
    motion to postpone the bill lost, 638;
    bill passed, 655.

  _United States' Judges, Memorial of_, in Senate, report of committee on, 665;
    what is due to the supreme law of the land?, 666;
    memorialists ask if the law of last session deprived them of their office of
      judge, 666;
    a question not cognizable by the Senate, to whom it does not belong to
      interpret their own acts, 666;
    it should be speedily settled by the proper tribunals, 666;
    effect of such a decision, 667;
    committee should have confined themselves to the points of the
      question, 667;
    constitutional power of Senate reviewed, 667;
    resolution of committee lost, 668.

  Petitions of, 727;
    reference moved, 728;
    memorial does not embrace any point of inquiry, 728;
    it should be referred to Committee of the Whole, 728;
    the constitutional question already determined, 728;
    undoubtedly a constitutional question, 728;
    reference unnecessary, subject already fully discussed, 728;
    referred to Committee of the Whole, 729;
    discussion in committee, 729;
    question been settled as to right of depriving the judges of their
      office, but not the question as to their compensation, 729;
    resolutions offered, 729;
    a new doctrine advanced, that a judge is entitled to his
      compensation, after being deprived of his authority and his
      powers are transferred to another, 729;
    true question on the constitutionality of the law, 730;
    if the courts are abolished, are the officers abolished?, 730;
    would the Supreme Court in this case be an impartial tribunal?, 730;
    it would be improper to authorize the Supreme Court to decide upon the
      constitutionality of the law, 730;
    when there are no services, there can be no claim for salary, 730;
    memorial is a protest, and let it rest on the files of the House, 730;
    resolutions lost, 731.


K

_Kentucky_, vote for President, 62, 487.

KITCHELL, AARON, Representative from New Jersey, 14, 429, 498;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 42;
  on petition of Hugh L. White, 51;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 60;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 71;
  on military appropriations, 98;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 451.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

KITTERA, JOHN WILKES, Representative from Pennsylvania, 120, 191, 326, 429;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 56;
  on naval appropriations, 101, 105;
  presides in Committee of the Whole, 193, 194;
  on the limits of Georgia, 220;
  on the bill relative to the protection of commerce, 289;
  on abrogation of treaty with France, 313.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

KOSCIUSKO, General, claim of, 191;
  history of, 192;
  proceedings on, 192;
  accounts of, 193.


L

LAFAYETTE, GENERAL.--Resolution relative to, 108;
  negotiations to effect his release from imprisonment, 108;
  his services for this country, 108;
  propriety and duty of negotiations on the part of the Executive, 108;
  subject improper to be introduced to the House--President knows the
      will of the people, 109;
  no impropriety in it, 109;
  further debate, 110;
  question lost, 111;
  _note_, 111.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Lake Superior._--Copper lands and mines--resolution authorizing the purchase of
      copper lands, 456;
  report of committee, 472;
  resolution reported agreed to, 472.

LANGDON, JOHN, Senator from New Hampshire, 3, 113, 165, 321, 399, 481.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

LATIMER, HENRY, Senator from Delaware, 3, 114, 165, 321, 400.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

LAURANCE, JOHN Senator from New York, 4, 114, 165, 321, 399;
  elected President _pro tem._ of Senate, 321.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Law of Retaliation._--_See Defensive Measures._

LEAR, TOBIAS, letter to President announcing death of Washington, 434.

LEE, HENRY, Representative from Virginia, 432, 497;
  delivers an oration on death of Washington, 404;
  letter accepting thanks of House, 436;
  on petition of free blacks, 437;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 450, 455;
  on mausoleum for Washington, 503, 504, 512, 513;
  on reporting the debates, 509;
  on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 518, 524.

LEE, SILAS, Representative from Massachusetts, 429, 497.

LEIB, MICHAEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 429, 497, 569, 693.

LEONARD, GEORGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 57.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Library of Congress_, resolution for a committee to procure, 474;
  bill regulating the use of, considered, 578;
  discussion of details, 578.

_Limitation, Acts of_, report on, 189;
  _note_ on, 190.

LINCOLN, LEVI, Representative from Massachusetts, 528.

LINN, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 429, 498.

LISTON, ROBERT, note to Secretary of State, 445.

LIVERMORE, SAMUEL, Senator from New Hampshire, 3, 113, 165, 321, 400, 481;
  chosen President of Senate _pro tem._, 400;
  on disputed Presidential elections, 406.

LIVINGSTON, EDWARD, Representative from New York, 17, 120, 179, 334, 429, 522;
  on the address to the President, 29, 31;
  on a National University, 37;
  on military and naval appropriations, 107;
  on liberation of Lafayette, 108;
  on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 136, 141;
  on arming merchant vessels, 147;
  on tax on lawyers, 156;
  reports on petition of daughters of Count de Grasse, 192;
  on expenditure for the naval service, 196, 197;
  on diplomatic intercourse, 216;
  on relations with France, 241;
  on establishing the Navy Department, 251;
  on the sedition bill, 307, 318;
  on relations with France, 356, 357;
  on the capture of French vessels, 361, 363;
  on repeal of alien and sedition law, 384;
  on the law of retaliation, 385;
  proposes resolutions in case of Jonathan Robbins, 446;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 448, 449, 451, 453, 457.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

LLOYD, JAMES, Senator from Maryland, 171, 323, 402;
  resigns seat in Senate, 484.

LLOYD, THOMAS, proposes to report debates of House, 14.

LOCKE, MATTHEW, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 121, 179, 326.

LOGAN, GEORGE, Senator from Pennsylvania, 541, 661.

_Louisiana, cession of, in the House_.--Resolution calling on the President for
      any documents relative to the cession of Louisiana to France,
      considered, 697;
  subject akin to one that had been discussed with closed doors, it
      should therefore be referred in the same manner, 698;
  nothing which ought to be kept secret involved in the transaction, 698;
  why refer the resolution calling for information to a committee? 698;
  if publicity will interfere with constitutional functions of the President,
      resolution should not be supported, 698;
  the cession is a public fact, 698;
  custom of the House should determine this fact, 698;
  no impropriety in this request, 699;
  widest publicity desirable where it will not prove injurious, 699;
  let the call prevail, 699;
  advantage of going into Committee of the Whole, 699;
  what is the object of those refusing information? 699;
  if proper we ought to have these documents, 699;
  this the first instance a resolution allowed to be important had been
      refused a reference, 700;
  object of reference is discussion with closed doors, 700;
  case of the British Treaty, 700;
  logic of the opposition, 700;
  what end is to be answered by committal, 700;
  case of British Treaty restated, 700;
  reference carried, 701;
  in committee--shall the doors be closed as heretofore ordered in respect
      to this subject, 701;
  discussed, 701, 702;
  resolutions in secret session, 702;
  resolutions for a call for papers again considered, 703;
  should not be referred to a secret committee, 703;
  motion has already been decided, 703;
  the President alludes to the subject as one which may require Legislative
      interposition, yet persists in refusing information, 703;
  why do we want information, but that we may have a more clear view of
      the general subject, 704;
  only two points connected with the subject in which documents could be
      required or secrecy necessary, 704;
  material connection between shutting the port of New Orleans
      and the cession of Louisiana--one has been ordered to be
      discussed with shut doors, how proper then to introduce the
      other in debate, 704;
  numerous reasons for opposing the resolution, 705;
  speech of Mr. Monroe in the Virginia Convention, 705;
  _note_, 705;
  who now are the friends of the West and the free navigation of the river? 708;
  the sentiments displayed in this proceeding a phenomenon in the history of
      regular governments, 708;
  a history of political parties unnecessary, 709;
  resolution lost, 709;
  further resolutions moved, 710;
  lost, 710;
  motion for call renewed, 713;
  confidential subjects have been decided, 713;
  information necessary to legislation, 713;
  no fact has been communicated in the message, 713;
  it conveys the suspicion that Spain has ceded to France indefinitely, 714;
  unwise in the cradle of negotiation to throw out insinuations that
      may disgust, 714;
  farther discussion, 715;
  what is the inference from previous proceedings of these
     gentlemen? they will not assert our rights because they have
     no confidence in the Executive, 715;
  objections to the resolution, 716;
  relations of the departments of Government, 717;
  it will offend foreign nations to agree to the resolutions, 718;
  further debate, resolution lost, 720;
  motion to discharge committee to whom was referred a motion
      respecting official information, 720;
  the practice has alarmingly increased to resist a call for information, 720;
  reasons given, 721.

_Purchase of Louisiana_, resolutions, 721;
  report thereon, 721;
  _note_, 723.

_Louisiana, purchase of, in Senate._--A bill making further provision for the
      expenses attending intercourse between the United States and
      foreign nations, considered, 671;
  read third time, 671;
  passed, 671;
  _note_, 6, 71.

LOWNDES, THOMAS, Representative from South Carolina, 569, 694;
  on public printing, 573;
  relative to State balances, 594;
  on French spoliations, 640;
  on the circulation of gold coin, 695;
  _note_, 695;
  on the call for information relative to cession of Louisiana, 703.

LYMAN, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

LYMAN, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 14;
  on the address to the President, 17, 19;
  on a National University, 36;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 40;
  on liberation of Lafayette, 110.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

LYON, MATTHEW, Representative from Vermont, 120, 179, 358, 429;
  on accompanying the House to deliver their answer to the
      President's message, 142;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157;
  on additional duty on salt, 164;
  on printing the laws in the German language, 165;
  on address to the President, 182;
  attack on Roger Griswold, 205;
  letter of, relative to attack on Roger Griswold, 206;
  proceedings relative to his assault on Roger Griswold, 208;
  on treatment of alien enemies, 281.
  _Expulsion of_ from House.--Resolution proposed, 364;
  objection to an immediate vote, 364;
  record of the trial proves the facts, 365;
  power of the House in reference to expulsion, 366;
  acts committed out of the House, 366;
  the acts of Lyon, 366;
  something should have been shown in the character of Lyon so infamous as
      to render him unfit to sit in the House, 366;
  the charges against the member ought not to have been inquired into under the
      sedition law, 367;
  charges, 367;
  examination of them, 367;
  the member is re-elected by constituents having a full knowledge of
      the prosecution, 368;
  remarks of Lyon, 368;
  reply, 369;
  further discussion of the law and the case, 369, 370;
  an examination of the letter published, 371;
  the constitutionality of the law under which the member was tried
      and manner of trial, 372;
  resolution to expel lost, 373;
  on the medal to Captain Truxton, 472.

LYON, MATTHEW, case of, _see Breach of Privilege_.


M

MACHIR, JAMES, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 326.

MACLAY, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

MACON, NATHANIEL, Representative from North Carolina, 14, 121, 179, 326, 429,
497, 569, 693;
  on a National University, 34;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 41;
  on land for Canadian refugees, 45;
  on kidnapping negroes, 46;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 60;
  on the accommodation of the President, 89, 91;
  on address to the President, 182;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 184, 187;
  on stamp duties, 185;
  advocates weekly licenses to distillers, 194;
  on report relative to the Matthew Lyon affair, 207;
  on the limits of Georgia, 219;
  on a provisional army, 247;
  on establishing the Navy Department, 249;
  on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 262;
  on temporary direct tax, 270;
  on persons to be admitted to citizenship, 279;
  on bill relative to instructions to armed vessels, 287;
  on the sedition bill, 308, 317;
  on intercourse with France and St. Domingo, 343;
  on the capture of French vessels, 358;
  on the law of retaliation, 388;
  against mausoleum to Washington, 504, 514, 515;
  on reporting the debates, 510;
  on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 525, 527;
  elected Speaker, 569;
  address to House, 569;
  on ratio of representation, 573;
  on Georgia limits, 577;
  on repeal of internal taxes, 580;
  relative to State balances, 596;
  in favor of repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 626;
  acknowledges thanks of House, 747. _See Index_, vol. 1.

MADISON, JAMES, Representative from Virginia, 14;
  on a National University, 37;
  on liability of United States to a State for war expenses, 50;
  on a direct tax on land and slaves, 52;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58;
  on liberation of Lafayette, 109. _See Index_, vol. 1.

MALBONE, FRANCIS, Representative from Rhode Island, 14. _See Index_,
vol. 1.

MARSHALL, HUMPHREY, Senator from Kentucky, 3, 119, 165, 321, 399, 481. _See
Index_, vol. 1.

MARSHALL, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 429;
  on breach of privilege, 429;
  announces death of Washington in House, 433;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 453;
  his great speech, 457.

MARTIN, ALEXANDER, Senator from North Carolina, 3, 114, 165, 323. _See
Index_, vol. 1.

_Maryland_, vote for President, 62, 487.

MASON, JONATHAN, Senator from Massachusetts, 544, 661;
  on repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 548.

MASON, STEVENS T., Senator from Virginia, 6, 114, 171, 323, 405, 481, 540, 661;
  on breach of privilege, 417;
  on the repeal of the Judiciary Establishment, 555;
  on the resolutions relative to the right of the United States to the
      free navigation of the Mississippi, 686. _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Massachusetts_ vote for President, 62, 487.

MATHERS, JAMES, Sergeant-at-Arms to Senate, 541;
  his extra allowance, 541.

MATTHEWS, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 120, 180, 330.

MATTOON, EBENEZER, Representative from Massachusetts, 523, 569, 694.

_Mausoleum_ for Washington, report of committee in Senate, 485.

MCCLAY, SAMUEL, Senator from Pennsylvania, 14, 665.

MCCLENACHAN, BLAIR, Representative from Pennsylvania, 120, 179, 326.

MCDOWELL, JOSEPH, Representative from North Carolina, 129, 189;
  on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 140;
  on tax on lawyers, 156;
  on the bill to raise a provisional army, 246;
  on establishing the Navy Department, 250;
  on the naturalization laws, 256, 257;
  on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 261;
  moves to postpone bill for a provisional army, 275;
  on residence before citizenship, 277;
  on the bill relative to protection of commerce, 288;
  on intercourse with France, 292;
  on the sedition bill, 307;
  on instructions to armed vessels, 319;
  on intercourse with France, 346;
  on the bill relative to the capture of French vessels, 358;
  on the capture of French vessels, 359;
  on repeal of alien and sedition law, 384. _See Index_, vol. 1.

MCHENRY, JAMES, letter to the House on the application of money drawn from
      the Treasury, 696.

MCMILLAN, Delegate from North-west Territory, 498.

_Mediterranean Powers_, report relative to affairs with, 79;
  _note_, 81;
  bill in relation to, 81.

_Mediterranean Trade_, resolution calling for information relative to
      exports to the Mediterranean considered, 584;
  upon the report a calculation will be made of the expense of protection, 584;
  report must be defective, 584;
  this call may delay passage of an important bill, 585;
  resolution agreed to, 585;
  bill for the protection of commerce in Mediterranean considered, 586;
  amendment to give President power to issue letters of marque to
      affect Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, 586;
  it seems to invite war, 586;
  their perfidiousness made this necessary, 586;
  other reasons urged, 586;
  not carried, 586.

MERIWETHER, JAMES, Representative from Georgia, 693.

_Message_, Washington to second session, fourth Congress, 15;
  of President John Adams to Congress, 114;
  confidential from President to Senate relative to the Dey of Algiers, 119;
  documents accompanying first message of John Adams to Congress, 121;
  of President Adams to second session, fifth Congress, 167;
  on the Creek Indians, 171;
  do. on French outrage, 171;
  do. on despatches from France, 172;
  on affairs with France, 173;
  from President Adams to Senate with Washington's letter accepting
      Lieutenant-Generalship, 177;
  to House relative to persons imprisoned for debt, 198;
  on French outrages, 207;
  on relations with France, 217, 304;
  from President Adams to third session of fifth Congress, 327;
  with documents relative to impressment of seamen, 333;
  on French affairs, 347;
  President Adams to first session, sixth Congress, 400;
  to Senate announcing death of Washington, 403;
  from House on death of Washington, 403;
  of President on sending resolutions to Mrs. Washington, 405;
  fourth of President Adams to second session, sixth Congress, 482;
  _note_, 482;
  first of President Jefferson, 541;
  from President on Georgia limits, 566;
  of President Jefferson, second session, seventh Congress, 662;
  on negotiation for acquisition of Louisiana, 664;
  with papers relative to removal of deposit at New Orleans, 694.

_Military Academy_, bill for establishing, introduced and read, 470;
  motion to reject it, 470;
  do. negatived, 470;
  bill referred, 470;
  postponement carried, 476.

_Military Interference_ in elections, resolution relative to, 446.

MILLEDGE, JOHN, Representative from Georgia, 34, 121, 569;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 40;
  on military appropriations, 98;
  on the limits of Georgia, 217;
  moves amendment to bill relative to Mississippi Territory, 224;
  on Georgia limits, 576.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Mint_, motion to consider a repeal of act establishing, 695;
  present state of matters at the mint, 695;
  no advantage in the discussion at this time, 695;
  no member sees a gold coin, 695;
  two millions deposited in the bank, 695;
  _note_, 695;
  reasons adduced for its abolition are insufficient, 695.

_Mint, Establishment of._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Mississippi Question, or free navigation of the Mississippi_, considered in
      Senate, 668;
  conduct of Spanish officers at New Orleans, 668;
  the power must be given and the means voted to vindicate in a becoming
      manner the honor and interests of the country, 668;
  spoliations by Spanish armed vessels, 668;
  our right to free navigation of the Mississippi, 669;
  denied, 669;
  consequence, 669;
  should take the command of the river, 669;
  feelings of Western people, 669;
  resolutions, 670;
  _note_, 671;
  resolutions mark out a system of measures honorable to the country, 671;
  extract from our treaty with Spain, 671;
  notwithstanding the treaty, New Orleans has been wrested from us, 672;
  represented as the rash act of an officer and not of the Spanish
      Government, 672;
  measures adopted, 672;
  agency of Bonaparte concealed, 673;
  danger of French control over the navigation of the Mississippi, 673;
  what is the true state of facts? 674;
  reasons for an immediate appeal to arms, 674;
  substitute for the resolutions moved, 675;
  a constant eye has been kept on this important subject by our
      Government in its negotiations, 676;
  history of negotiations, 676;
  conduct of the Intendant at New Orleans is an atrocious infraction
      of the treaty, 676;
  was it authorized by Spain or not? 676;
  true state of Spanish aggression, 676;
  nature, character and tendency of the remedy proposed, 676;
  proposes to seize part of the Territory, 676;
  in this case the controversy must be decided by force, 676;
  resolution then a war resolution, 677;
  its justice and policy considered, 677;
  in vain to say the Western States will seize New Orleans, 678;
  an indignity has been offered the United States by the Spanish Government, by
      withdrawing the right of deposit at New Orleans in this manner, 678;
  the right of the free navigation of the Mississippi, and to a place of deposit
      indisputable, 678;
  to seize any place or places is an act of war, 679;
  should we be justified in this measure on the grounds of private or
      public justice or the law of nations, considered? 679;
  what evidence that the Intendant is not authorized by the Spanish or French
      Government? 680;
  our interests, our honor, our safety require the course pointed out by the
      resolutions, 680;
  the resolutions do not go far enough, 680;
  we wish for peace, how is it to be preserved? 681;
  what is the state of things? 681;
  effect of this cession on the United States in general point of view, 682;
  its effects on the various divisions of the country, 682;
  its consequences to other nations, 683;
  the first resolution intended to involve members opposed to hostile
      measures in a dilemma, 685;
  they call on us to declare the deprivation of our right of deposit to be
      hostile to our interests and our honor, 685;
  effects of negotiation heretofore, 686;
  it is said negotiation is not the course for us to pursue, 687;
  merits of the different propositions, 687;
  it is said Spain had no right to cede Louisiana to France, 687;
  extraordinary aspect of the Senate, 688;
  on what right could we hold the country against France? 689;
  we have nothing to fear from the colony of any European nation on
      this continent, 689;
  conduct of this House on former occasions, 690;
  our object to obtain prompt redress of injuries immediately affecting
      our Western brethren, 690;
  we are not for rushing into war, but for repelling insult, 691;
  members have pledged themselves to employ force on failure of
      negotiations, 691;
  resolutions passed, 692;
  proceedings in secret session relative to free navigation of Mississippi, 710.

_Mississippi Territory._--_See Territories._

MITCHELL, SAMUEL L., Representative from New York, 569, 693;
  on protection against the Barbary powers, 571;
  in favor of resolution relative to state balances, 594;
  on French spoliations, 640, 645, 726, 732.

MONROE, JAMES, speech in Virginia Convention relative to surrender of the
navigation of the Mississippi, 705.

_Monuments_ to Generals and to the captors of Andre, 712.

MOORE, THOMAS, Representative from South Carolina, 11, 569, 693;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 42, 43;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 53.

MORGAN, DANIEL, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 326.

MORRIS, GOUVERNEUR, Senator from New York, 481, 545, 664;
  on the resolutions relative to the right of the United States to the
      free navigation of the Mississippi, 680.

MORRIS, LEWIS R., Representative from Vermont, 155, 179, 429, 498, 570, 696.

MORRIS, THOMAS, Representative from New York, 569, 694;
  on repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 549, 560;
  on the apportionment bill, 575;
  on the collection of internal revenue, 588;
  relative to state balances, 595;
  on memorial of United States Judges, 666;
  for the reading of the letter of McHenry, 697;
  on granting land-warrants to La Fayette, 743.

MOTT, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 569, 693.

MUHLENBERG, FREDERICK A., Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 429, 497.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

MURRAY, WILLIAM VANS, Representative from Maryland, 14;
  on a national university, 38;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 42;
  on kidnapping negroes, 46, 47;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 53;
  on the purchase of a site for a navy yard, 67.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.


N

_National University._--Report on, considered, 34;
  the time has not arrived to incorporate a university, 35;
  if the House once enters on this subject, the responsibility will fall on
      it to keep it up, 35;
  the commissioners only ask to be incorporated, so as to receive legacies, 35;
  the President has already made a donation, 35;
  is it a proper step, 35;
  we are only asked to permit its encouragement, 35;
  better to ask this of Maryland, 36;
  improper time to decide upon a national university, 36;
  effects of the resolution, if adopted, 37;
  will we grant power and security to individuals to receive donations for this
      object, 37;
  negatived in committee, 38;
  further debate, 38;
  subject postponed, 39;
  vote on postponement of consideration of, 39;
  memorial of Samuel Blodget relative to, 712.

_Naturalization Laws._--_Resolution to prolong term of residence_ before
      aliens shall be admitted as citizens, considered, 253;
  five years too short, 253;
  at least ten should be required, 253;
  high time to recover from the mistake of admitting foreigners to
      citizenship, 253;
  amendment offered that no alien, not at present a resident, shall be
      capable of holding any office under U. S., or voting, 254;
  civil rights might be extended in full to foreigners, but not
      political rights, 254;
  unnecessary they should take a part in government, 254;
  only persons born in a country should do it, 254;
  the form of the amendment examined, 254;
  resolution proposed as a substitute, excluding all aliens not citizens
      from holding any U. S. office, 254;
  House not authorized to enact this principle into a law, 255;
  it ought to be considered as a proposition to amend the constitution, 255;
  if the House had power to extend the term of residence, they could
      make it for life, 255;
  question made on amendment of previous resolution, 255;
  President and Senate always appoint such men as they think proper, 255;
  people can elect a foreign-born citizen to any State office, 255;
  no doubt of the constitutionality of restricting aliens, 255;
  what advantage to be derived from giving aliens office? 255;
  propriety of action on the subject, 256;
  amendment withdrawn and original resolution adopted, 256;
  resolution relative to removal of resident aliens whose Government is
      at war with this country, considered, 256;
  what shall be considered "at war?" 256;
  foreigners have been invited here, this resolution will unnecessarily
      distress their minds, 256;
  intriguing aliens should be removed, 256;
  a positive declaration of war should be required before aliens are sent
      from the country and our citizens abroad similarly exposed, 257;
  only dangerous persons should be sent away, 257;
  the resolution proposes to give the President power to remove aliens when the
      country from which they come _threatens_ invasion, 257;
  evil threatened at the present time, 257;
  commissions issued here by foreign ministers, 258;
  _note_, 258;
  this an essential feature of defence, about which Congress has been
      engaged during the session, 258;
  great number of French aliens in the country endeavoring to
      create divisions, 258;
  the same degree of hospitality is not due to French aliens and to
      alien friends, 258;
  moved to extend to _all_ alien residents, 258;
  look at the results of French emissaries in Venice, Switzerland,
      and Rome, 259;
  similar emissaries in this country, 259;
  views of the committee who reported the resolution, 259;
  further debate, 260;
  last motion withdrawn, 260;
  proposition to add the words, "between which and the United States
      shall exist a state of war," 260;
  debate thereon, 260;
  postponement carried, 261;
  consideration resumed, and subject referred, 272;
  amended resolution, 272.

_Motion to require fourteen_ years' residence before admission to citizenship,
      277;
  tend to discourage emigration, 277;
  carried, 277;
  discussion on the retrospection of the bill, 277;
  committee thought bill should pass in its present form, 278;
  amendments proposed, 278;
  also to except residents previous to 1795, 278;
  reason in favor of the amendment, 278;
  no exception should be made, 278;
  the character of the persons who have come here is such as to require
      the amendment, 279;
  it is a question of right or expediency;
  considered as the latter, the danger is apparent of permitting foreigners
      to become citizens as heretofore, 279;
  injustice to a great number of people to pass the bill without
      the amendment, 279;
  amendment passed, 280; negatived in the House, 280;
  bill ordered to a third reading, 280.

_Alien Laws, petition for repeal_ of, 364;
  motion to refer, 364;
  part of the petition contains an atrocious libel against the courts
      and juries of the country, 365;
  this should not be referred, 365;
  this is the ground suggested by the greatest enemies of these laws, that
      the right of petitioning might next be restricted, 365;
  to object is to say we have the power of defining the nature
      of petitions, 365;
  further remarks on the character of the petition, 365;
  further petitions for repeal, 373; report of committee on petitions
      for repeal, 373;
  resolution that it is inexpedient to repeal alien law, considered, 373;
  number of petitioners, 373;
  objectionable clause of the alien law, 373;
  grounds of objection by petitioners, 373;
  objections examined, 374;
  report of committee examined, 375, 376, 377, 378;
  resolution carried, 378.

_Naturalization Laws._--_See Index_, Vol. 1.

_Naval Armament._--_See Appropriations_, naval.

_Naval Captains_, bill for pay of, 357.

_Naval and Marine_ officers, bill for relief of widows and orphans
of, 566.

_Naval Establishment_--Purchase of a site for a navy yard, considered, 66;
  at some future day we shall become a naval power; it is now economy to
      prepare for it, 66;
  expense of this business alarming, 66;
  if the thing is proper, two or three years can make very
      little difference, 66;
  a navy would never do any real good to this country, 66;
  this country depends wholly on commerce for revenue, 67;
  that commerce is now in jeopardy, and no substitute for revenue found, 67;
  the money thrown away on Algiers to buy a peace would have been much
      better expended in building ships, 67;
  want of a navy will have a similar effect on all our negotiations, 67;
  our live-oak timber is too rich a mine to be neglected, 67;
  they must provide for the protection of commerce, or give it up, 67;
  is the measure proper, and is it not best to postpone it for the present? 68;
  if a navy is necessary to protect commerce, it must be such a one as
      will vie with those of other nations, 69;
  who can show that commerce and a navy have gone hand in hand? 69;
  this country not equal to support a navy, 69;
  how can such a navy, be manned? 69;
  our peculiar situation affords means of protection, 69;
  our only mode of warfare against Europe is by putting our seamen on board of
      privateers, 69;
    _note_, 69.

_Bill to establish Navy Department_ considered, 248;
  unnecessary, 248;
  one department sufficient for army and navy, 248;
  objections have been to increase the navy because of enormous expense
      arising from want of knowledge--this department will obviate this, 248;
  necessity for this establishment, 249;
  notwithstanding all resistance the establishment of a naval force must soon be
      seriously considered, 249;
  the necessity for the department examined, 249;
  a want of knowledge of naval affairs in the War Department is the
      occasion of this bill--this can be obviated, 249;
  economy requires the department, 250;
  this bill is founded on the idea of establishing a large naval power, 250;
  economy further considered, 250;
  not for the interest of the country to establish a naval power, 251;
  large debts exist with large navies, 251;
  every measure to increase the navy will have a bad effect, 251;
  further debate, 251;
  bill ordered to third reading, 252;
  passed, 252;
    _note_, 252.

_Bill for augmentation of the Navy_ considered, 348;
  question of the propriety of building ships of the line, 348;
  reasons for building smaller ships of the line, 348;
  is it proper at this time to lay the foundation of a navy that might be
      able to give us weight with Europe? 348;
  expense of proposed navy, 348;
  reasons urged against a large navy, 349;
  the extent and advantages of our commerce entitle it to competent
      protection, 350;
  British navy contrasted with ours, 350;
  expense of a navy, 350;
  Jefferson's views, 351;
  means by which to raise the money needed, 351;
  usefulness of a naval establishment considered, 351;
  navy of Holland, 353;
  instruction to be drawn from this example, 354;
  propriety of a naval force for warring with Europe, 355;
  arguments on, examined, 355;
  no good reason for its establishment exists, 356;
  motion to strike out ships of the line lost, 356;
    _note_, 356.

_Bill for fixing pay of Captains_ of ships, &c., 356;
      details, 357. _See Appropriations_, and _Index_, vol. 1.

_Naval Peace Establishment_, bill for, passed House, 537.

_Navy, Admirals_ in, _see Admirals in the Navy_.

_Negroes, kidnapping of_, report on memorial of State of Delaware relative to
      kidnapping negroes and mulattoes considered, 45;
  this practice done by masters of vessels, 45;
  plan was to pass an act requiring masters of vessels to have a certificate
      of the number and situation of any on board, 45;
  laws in the several States fully adequate, 46;
  State laws being local do not reach the case, 46;
  design is to prevent selling free negroes as slaves and taking slaves
      to make them free, 46;
  many serious questions involved, 46;
  committee better rise as the measure is improper, 46;
  many instances of this practice had occurred, 46;
  it is that kind of business which, by the constitution, was to be left to the
      different States, 47;
  the House should not interfere with the States, 47;
  motion for the committee to rise carried, 47;
  motion to discharge committee carried, 47;
  motion to recommit to report by bill or otherwise, 47;
  propriety of sending it to committee doubtful, 47;
  postponement carried, 48.

NEUFVILLE, JOHN DE, claim of widow of, 69;
  particulars of, 70.

NEW, ANTHONY, Representative from Virginia, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569,
      693;
  advocates weekly license to distillers, 194. _See Index_, vol. 1.

_New Hampshire_, vote for President, 62, 487.

_New Jersey_, vote for President, 62, 487.

_Newspapers_, resolution of House relative to, 430;
  resolution of Senate for, 400.

NEWTON, THOMAS, jr., Representative from Virginia, 569, 693.

_New York_, vote for President, 62, 487.

NICHOLAS, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 120, 180, 429, 497;
  on the address to the President, 18, 28;
  on a National University, 35, 36;
  on kidnapping negroes, 47;
  on liability of United States to a State for war expenses, 51;
  on a direct tax on land and slaves, 52, 53, 54;
  on the purchase of a site for a navy yard, 66;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 72, 73;
  on increase of duties on salt, 74;
  on naval appropriation, 76, 77;
  on suability of the States, 86;
  on the accommodation of the President, 88, 90;
  on the military establishment, 96, 99;
  on naval appropriations, 99, 100, 102;
  on military and naval appropriations, 106;
  on liberation of La Fayette, 108;
  on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 125;
  on resolutions relative to defensive measures, 145;
  on a naval armament, 153, 154;
  on tax on lawyers, 155, 156;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157;
  on composition with banks in lieu of a tax, 162;
  on additional duty on salt, 164;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 186;
  advocates weekly licenses to distillers, 194;
  on naval expenditure, 197;
  on foreign intercourse, 199, 203;
  on report relative to Matthew Lyon, 207, 208;
  on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 210, 211;
  on diplomatic intercourse, 216;
  on the limits of Georgia, 219, 223;
  on relations with France, 227;
  on the bill to raise a provisional army, 243;
  on the sedition bill, 307, 316;
  on intercourse with France and St. Domingo, 334, 335, 340;
  on increase of the navy, 354;
  on the capture of French vessels, 362;
  on the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 366;
  on repeal of sedition law, 378;
  on breach of privilege, 418;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 451, 453, 457;
  on the medal to Captain Truxton, 471;
  on the bill to prohibit carrying on the slave trade, 475;
  on reporting the debates, 502;
  on mausoleum to Washington, 503;
  on reporting the debates, 506, 510;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 518, 520;
  on the right of the United States to the free navigation of the
      Mississippi, 688.
_See Index_, vol. 1.

NICHOLAS, WILSON CARY, Senator from Virginia, 405, 481, 540, 664.

NICHOLSON, JACOB a manumitted slave, petition of, 57.

NICHOLSON, JOSEPH H., Representative from Maryland, 429, 497, 569, 693;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 454;
  relative to officers and crew of frigate Constellation, 470;
  on reporting the debates, 507;
  on protection against the Barbary powers, 571;
  on public printing, 573;
  on the Mediterranean trade, 584;
  on unauthorized purchase of navy yards, 657;
  on amendment to the bankrupt act, 724.

NICHOLSON, JUPITER, a manumitted slave, petition of, 57.

_North Carolina_, vote for President, 62, 487.

NOTT, ABRAHAM, Representative from South Carolina, 429, 501;
  on mausoleum to Washington, 503.


O

_Oaths._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

OGDEN, AARON, Senator from New Jersey, 489, 541, 661.

_Ohio School Fund_, resolutions relative to, 742.

_Ohio State Government._--Report of Select Committee on admission of
      North-western Territory as a State, 648;
  after one State is laid off, Congress is under an obligation to form the
      remainder into a State, 648;
  number of the population, 648;
  manner of dividing the territory, 648;
  further debate thereon, 649;
  report agreed to and bill ordered, 650;
  do. before the House, 651;
  amendment moved to embrace Eastern division, 651;
  rights of all the inhabitants equal--if one part formed into a State,
      all must be under the compact, 651;
  arguments from expediency, 651;
  objections urged, 651;
  amendment lost, 651;
  various amendments proposed, 652;
  bill ordered to be engrossed, 653;
  do. passed, 654.

OLCOTT, SIMEON, Senator from New Hampshire, 541, 661;
  on the repeal of the Judiciary Establishment, 559.

ORR, ALEXANDER D., Representative from Kentucky, 49.

OTIS, HARRISON GRAY, Representative from Massachusetts, 120, 179, 326, 429,
      498;
  on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 134, 141;
  on expatriation, 152;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 159, 160;
  on address to President, 182;
  on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 212;
  on the limits of Georgia, 220, 222;
  on relations with France, 231;
  on the bill to raise a provisional army, 243;
  on establishing the Navy Department, 249;
  proposes amendment to naturalization laws, 254, 255, 256, 257;
  on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 262;
  on opposition to a direct tax, 268;
  on bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 283;
  on the bill relative to the protection of commerce, 289;
  on intercourse with France, 295;
  on abrogation of treaty with France, 314;
  on the sedition bill, 307, 316;
  on intercourse with France and St. Domingo, 335;
  on the law of retaliation, 387;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 452;
  on petition of free blacks, 437;
  on reporting the debates, 502;
  on mausoleum to Washington, 503;
  on reporting the debates, 507;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 519.


P

PAGE, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 17;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 42;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 55. _See Index_, vol. 1.

PAGE, ROBERT, Representative from Virginia, 431, 497.

PAINE, ELIJAH, Senator from Vermont, 3, 118, 165, 321, 401, 485;
  on breach of privilege, 417. _See Index_, vol. 1.

PARKER, ISAAC, Representative from Massachusetts, 179, 326;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 185.

PARKER, JOSIAH, Representative from Virginia, 17, 129, 180, 380, 431, 498;
  on the address to the President, 18, 29;
  on the compensation of President and other officers, 61;
  on resolution to notify the Vice President of his election, 63;
  on compensation of President and other officers, 63;
  on naval appropriation, 77, 99, 102;
  on military and naval appropriations, 106;
  on defensive measures, 145;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 185;
  relative to General Kosciusko, 191;
  advocates weekly licenses to distillers, 194;
  on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 210;
  on third reading of the bill relative to protection of commerce, 291;
  on a marine corps, 292;
  on increase of the navy, 350;
  on the capture of French vessels, 360;
  reports a bill authorizing increase of marine corps, 373;
  on conduct of officers and crew of frigate Constellation, 470;
  on the medal to Captain Truxton, 471;
  on admirals in the navy, 473. _See Index_, vol. 1.

PATTON, JOHN, Representative from Delaware, 14.

_Pennsylvania_ insurgents, _see Index_, vol. 1.

_Pennsylvania_, vote for President, 62, 487.

PERKINS, ELIAS, Representative from Connecticut, 569, 693.

_Petitions_ for repeal of alien and sedition law, 373.

_Petitions, reception of_.--Petition of four negroes,
     manumitted by their master, and afterwards sold into slavery
     under the laws of North Carolina, and subsequently escaping
     and being arrested under the fugitive act in Philadelphia,
     considered, 57;
  they pray the House to modify the fugitive act so as not to affect
      persons of their description, 58;
  very proper to refer petition to a committee, 58;
  persons aggrieved have a sacred right to petition, 58;
  laws of North Carolina forbid emancipation, 58;
  men not free, 58;
  United States nothing to do with it, 58;
  if free by the laws of North Carolina, they should apply to
     those laws to establish their freedom--if slaves, the
     constitution gives them no hope of being heard here, 58;
  a committee could inquire into the facts, 58;
  every due respect should be paid to the petition, 59;
  former practice was to send the petition back, 59;
  they are slaves--a kind of property on which the House has no power
      to legislate, 59;
  cannot the House receive a petition without evidence that it is from
      a free man? 59;
  unjust to deprive them of the right of petitioning, 59;
  it is a judicial question, 59;
  by application to North Carolina justice would be done them, 60;
  they have received injury under a law of the United States, and have,
      therefore, a right to the attention of the Government, 60;
  receiving the petition negatived, 60.

_Quakers, memorial_ of, 182;
  motion to read second time, 183;
  every Legislature should set their face against remonstrances complaining
      of what it is impossible to alter, 183;
  to read and commit is the regular way of getting rid of the difficulty, 183;
  no objection to commit if the committee will report the censure deserved, 183;
  no reason why the petition should not be dealt with in the ordinary way, 183;
  the practice of the House--what objection to it now? 184;
  _note_, 184;
  nature of the petition, 184;
  no authority over the subject, 184;
  Quakers war-makers, 184;
  _note_, 184;
  unconstitutional to ask the House to do what they had no power to do, 185;
  only object of petition to sow dissension, 185;
  nothing prayed for, 185;
  unnecessary to refer such a petition, 185;
  no objection in general principles to a reference of the petition, 185;
  contents of the petition, 185;
  previous treatment of abolition petitions, 185;
  to appear to be afraid of inquiring, will do more harm to slave property
      than a fair investigation, 186;
  reasons urged for the second reading, 186;
  the doors should be shut against any thing tending to produce
      such confusion as exists in West India Islands, 187;
  no ground of irritation in the question, 187;
  nothing unconstitutional be done, 187;
  the fact called for examination, 187;
  if petition is received and early reported on, it would stop the
      mouth of these people, 187;
  further debate, 187, 188;
  second reading carried, 188;
  referred to a select committee, 188;
  report of committee on Quakers' memorial, 209;
  remarks thereon, 209;
  memorialists have leave to withdraw, 209.

_Petition of free blacks_ of the City and County of Philadelphia, considered,
      436;
  outline of the petition, 437;
  reference moved, 437;
  any reference improper, 437;
  only two grievances noticed in the petition--fugitive act and
       slave trade, 437;
  a duty to grant relief so far as the House has power, 437;
  signers incapable of writing their names or reading the petition, 437;
  those who do not possess this property better leave its regulation
      to those who do, 437;
   so improper is it to consider this subject that some States
      would not have adopted the federal form of government if it
      had not been secured that Congress would never legislate on
      it, 438;
  no subject so likely to cause a division as this, 438;
  if an evil exists under any law, a committee should be appointed
      to examine it, 438;
  constitution put it out of the power of the House, 438;
  petition only asks amelioration of severities, 439;
  petition examined, 439;
  further debate, 440, 441;
  former treatment of petitions, 442;
  would gentlemen feel calm if measures were taken to destroy most of
      their property, 442;
  no danger from committing the petition, 443;
  further debate, 444;
  resolution relative to petition adopted, 444.
  _See Index_, vol. 1, _Slavery and Slave Trade_.

_Philadelphia_, first session, 5th Congress, commenced at, 113.

PICKERING, JOHN, impeached before the Senate by the House, 692.

PICKERING, TIMOTHY, report of, as Secretary of State, 80;
  letter with papers in Jonathan Robbins' case, 444.

PIERCE, JOSEPH, Representative from New Hampshire, 570.

_Pilnitz, Treaty_ of, a forgery, 239.

PINCKNEY, CHARLES, Senator from South Carolina, 324, 405;
  vote for, as President in 1796, 63;
  on disputed Presidential elections, 406;
  on breach of privilege, 409;
  on bill to amend act establishing Judiciary courts, 419;
  vote for, as President, 487.

PINCKNEY, THOMAS, Representative from South Carolina, 180, 300;
  vote for, as President in 1796, 62;
  on answer to President's message, 181;
  relative to Gen. Kosciusko, 192;
  on foreign intercourse, 203;
  on relations with France, 232;
  letter relative to presents offered to him by courts in Europe, 253;
  on presents to Ministers by foreign courts, 269;
  on intercourse with France and St. Domingo, 342, 346;
  on the capture of French vessels, 360.

PLATER, THOMAS, Representative from Maryland, 569, 693.

PLATT JONAS, Representative from New York, 429, 497;
  on petition of free blacks, 440.

PLUMER, WILLIAM, Senator from New Hampshire, 661.

POLLOCK, OLIVER, bill reported for relief of, 207.

_Post Office, franking privilege._--Motion to pay $4,500 on letters to and from
      certain officers of the army, 723;
  unnecessary, 723;
  Government ought to support this expense, 723;
  all franking wrong, 724;
  considerations in favor thereof, 724.

_Post Office._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Potomac Canal_, shares in, given to the President, 87;
  _note_, 37.

POTTER, ELISHA R., Representative from Rhode Island, 34, 120;
  on a direct tax on personal property, 54;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 159.

POWELL, LEVEN, Representative from Virginia, 429, 497.

_Presents to Ministers._--Letter of Mr. Pinckney relative to presents offered to
      him by Spanish and British courts considered, 253;
  referred to a select committee, 253;
  resolution from the Senate granting leave to Mr. Pinckney to accept certain
      presents, 261;
  moved to concur, 261;
  if we allow presents to be received, we must prepare to give them, 261;
  if it should ever be allowed in consideration of public service, there
      never could be a better occasion, 261;
  object of the constitution is to oblige ministers to make known to the
      world the presents they receive, 261;
  this particular case considered, 261;
  policy dictates the propriety of rejecting the resolution, 261;
  object of the constitution to lock up every door to foreign influence, 262;
  if leave granted, a precedent established and a title will be
      tendered hereafter, 262;
  this will be the last application, if resolution rejected, 262;
  no grounds for apprehension, 262;
  practice under the confederation, 262;
  action in this case will fix future usage, 262;
  not necessary to accept them as a point of etiquette, 262;
  a dangerous principle as it opens an avenue to foreign influence, 263;
  a stop should be put to this business, 263;
  further debate--House refused to concur, 264;
  explanation and views of Mr. Pinckney, 269;
  reason of the House for refusal, 276.

_Presents to a Minister's wife._--Letter from Col. Humphrey, 731;
  referred to a select committee, 732.

_Presidency_, vacancy in, _see Index_, vol. 1.

_President's election disputed in the Senate._--Resolution
     for the appointment of a committee to inquire what
     provisions should be made by law to decide &c., considered, 405;
  if any thing is done it must be by an amendment to the constitution, 406;
  dangerous practice to endeavor to amend the constitution by making
      laws for it, 406;
  Legislature has a right to make such provision as may be necessary, 406;
  questions to be considered with regard to _electors_, 406;
  do. 407;
  committee appointed, 407;
  bill reported, 407;
  postponed, 408.
  _In the House_, bill considered, 473;
    motion debated, 473;
    postponed, 478;
    message from Senate disagreeing to amendments, 479;
    House adhere, 479;
    bill lost, 479.

PRITCHETT, THOMAS, a manumitted slave, petition of, 57.

_Proceedings_ in Senate on ratification of convention with French Republic, 492.

_Protection_ of Trade, _see Appropriations_, naval.

_Public Lands._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Public Printing._--Report in favor of appointing a public printer considered,
      573;
  various objections urged, 573;
  reasons in favor stated, 573;
  lost, 573.


Q

_Quakers' Memorial._--_See Petitions._


R

RANDOLPH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 429, 498, 569, 694;
  on petition of free blacks, 438;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 450;
  on the medal to Captain Truxton, 471;
  moves $500 for furniture for President, 473;
  on a mausoleum to Washington, 516, 517;
  on jurisdiction over District of Columbia, 520;
  on public printing, 573;
  on the apportionment bill, 575;
  on library of Congress, 578;
  on reduction of the army, 578;
  on resolutions relative to Judiciary, 582;
  in favor of repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 621;
  against reading the letter of McHenry, 697;
  on motion to establish the mint, 695;
  on the call for papers relative to the cession of Louisiana, 698, 700,
      713, 715, 717;
  on amendment to the bankrupt act, 724, 725;
  on petition of United States judges, 728, 729;
  against taking up resolution relative to French spoliations, 732;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 738.

_Ratio of representation, in the Senate_, bill to fix, considered, 550;
  moved to strike out 33,000 and insert 30,000, 550;
  unless amended 28,800 persons in Delaware will have no representative, 550;
  equity of the case, 550;
  other reasons urged, 551;
  motion to strike out lost, 551;
  moved to allow one member for every fraction of 27,000, 551;
  reasons for the motion, 551;
  lost, 551;
  bill passed, 551.
  _In the House._--Resolution to fix the ratio at 33,000, 572;
    various numbers proposed, 572;
    arguments in favor of a small and of a large ratio, 572;
    resolution carried, 573;
    move to strike out 33,000 and insert 30,000, 573;
    object to lessen the size of the districts that electors might know
      the elected, 573;
    smallest ratio preferred as a matter of principle, 573;
    Delaware an extreme case, 574;
    small States materially affected by the ratio in the bill, 574;
    views of the people, 574;
    experience of the States, 574;
    large representation relied on for safety and economy, 574;
    further debate, 575;
    heretical and improper to consider the House as the representative
      of the people, 575;
    the members of the House are the representatives of the States in
      proportion to their numbers, 575;
    the apportionment is among the States, not among the people, 575;
    further debate, 576;
    motion to strike out eight and insert nine as the representation
      from Maryland, 583;
    motion carried, 583.
    _See Index_, vol. 1.

READ, JACOB, Senator from South Carolina, 3, 117, 165, 321, 399, 484;
  elected President _pro tem._ of the Senate, 166.

READ, JOHN, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 72;
  on breach of privilege, 418.

READ, NATHAN, Representative from Massachusetts, 498, 569, 693.

_Report_ on memorial of Anna de Neufville, 69;
  of Secretary of State, relative to affairs with Mediterranean powers, 79;
  on petition of widow of Hanging Maw, 97;
  on petition of daughters of Count de Grasse, 192;
  on the Matthew Lyon affair, 206;
  of Committee on Privileges on Griswold and Lyon case, 213;
  on petition of Stephen Cantrell, 242;
  on remonstrance of Georgia, 331;
  on petitions for repeal of alien and sedition law, 373;
  on measures in relation to breach of privilege, 422, 423;
  in Senate on mausoleum for Washington, 485;
  of committee of House on credentials, 500;
  of Committee on Unfinished Business, 522;
  on credentials of members, 530;
  of Committee on State Balances, 534;
  of committee on remonstrance of Georgia, 537;
  on the Wyoming controversy, 639;
  on State balances, 639;
  in Senate on memorial of United States Judges, 666;
  of committee on case of Van Ness, 725.

_Resolution_ in Senate relative to joint meeting of two Houses to count
      votes for President, 6;
  of relief in lands to Canadian refugees, 44, 45;
  of Andrew Jackson on petition of Hugh L. White, 48;
  on direct taxes, 52;
  to notify Vice President Jefferson of his election, 63;
  relative to lands of live-oak and red timber, 69;
  relative to grant of lands to John C. Symmes, 70;
  relative to suability of the States, 88;
  relative to statements from War Department, 105;
  relative to Gen. Lafayette, 108;
  relative to defensive measures, 144;
  relative to printing the laws in the German language, 165;
  ordering newspapers for Senators, 166;
  authorizing Minister to Spain to receive presents, 173;
  relative to Gen. Kosciusko, 191;
  relative to attack of Matthew Lyon on Roger Griswold, 206;
  on Quakers' memorial, 209;
  relative to disorderly behavior of Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, 210;
  of Otis, relative to case of Griswold and Lyon, 212;
  relative to claim of Amy Dardin, 213;
  on relations with France, 225;
  that no alien shall ever be a citizen, 254;
  relative to direct taxes, 265;
  relative to naturalization, 272;
  relative to presents to ministers by foreign courts, 276;
  relative to relations with France, 296;
  giving bounty on capture of French armed vessels, 320;
  relative to remonstrance of Georgia, 348;
  for the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 364;
  relative to prints of John Trumbull, 402;
  of Senate relative to death of Washington, 403;
  of House sent to Senate on death of Washington, 404;
  of House relative to commemoration of death of Washington, 405;
  in Senate on disputed Presidential elections, 405;
  of Senate to hear eulogium on Washington, 408;
  of Senate relative to breach of privilege, 408;
  relative to prosecution of William Duane, 427;
  relative to prints of John Trumbull, 431;
  to grant W. H. Harrison franking privilege, 433;
  in House relative to death of Washington, 434;
  of respect to memory of Washington, 435;
  relative to amendment to constitution, 446;
  in case of Jonathan Robbins, 447-452;
  relative to western lands, 448;
  relative to conduct of officers and crew of frigate Constellation, 470;
  for a medal to Capt. Truxton, 469-471;
  on Lake Superior lands, 457-472;
  relative to lands given in satisfaction of judgments, 473;
  on appropriation for holding Indian treaties, 477;
  relative to additional revenue, 477;
  relative to an additional army, 477;
  relative to the memory of Washington, 478;
  relative to counting votes for President, 486;
  of old Congress relative to statue to Washington, 512;
  relative to election of President, 522, 523;
  relative to the Judiciary, 581;
  relative to Lieut. Sterret, officers, and crew, 593;
  relative to imprisonment for debt, 593;
  on decease of Narsworthy Hunter, 640;
  relative to French spoliations, 642;
  relative to funeral expenses of members, 648;
  relative to free navigation of Mississippi, 670;
  in Senate relative to impeachment of John Pickering, 692;
  calling for papers relative to removal of deposit at New Orleans, 694;
  relative to J. P. Van Ness, 696;
  calling for information relative to the cession of Louisiana, 697;
  relative to cession of Louisiana, 702;
  relative to the navigation of the Mississippi, 710;
  do. considered in secret session, 710;
  for monuments to various officers and others, 712;
  for a monument to Gen. Gates, 725;
  relative to pay of late U. S. Judges, 731;
  relative to French spoliations, 732;
  on receding to the respective States jurisdiction over the District
      of Columbia, 736;
  relative to Ohio School Fund, 742.

_Revenue_ statements, reports on, made, 214.

_Revenue_, collection of; resolution for information relative to expense of
      collecting the revenue, &c., considered, 587;
  great objection to internal taxes; the expense of collection, 588;
  information sought, that it may be reduced, 588;
  expense of collecting other taxes, 588;
  the collection of some cost more than the collection of other
      taxes--discrimination required, 588;
  statements of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 589;
  further debate, 589;
  the intention seems to be to repeal the internal taxes, right or wrong, 589;
  further debate, 590;
  motion lost, 591.

_Rhode Island._--Vote for President, 62, 487.

_Rhode Island._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

RICHARDS, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14.

ROBBINS, JONATHAN, case of, 444;
  papers in, 444;
  resolutions of Mr. Bayard, 446;
  do. of Mr. Livingston, 447;
  resolutions of Mr. Livingston taken up, 448; _note_, 448;
  statement of facts, 448;
  record of the court should be obtained, 448;
  kind of evidence to be adduced, 449;
  point to be gained, 449;
  motion to discharge committee, not sufficient evidence before them, 450;
  if interference of Executive improper, it did not proceed from
      improper motives, 450;
  claim of citizenship and protection by Robbins, 450;
  further debate relative to rising of the committee, 450, 451, 452;
  motion negatived, 452;
  resolutions calling on President for copy of the proceedings of the court
      considered, 452;
  is there any such evidence as will throw light on the case? 453;
  all the evidence necessary should be obtained, 453;
  extraordinary resolution--was the President clerk of the court? 453;
  the resolution must be negatived, and the debate on the merits go
      forward, if the end is to be reached this session, 453;
  motion will operate as a discharge of the committee, 454;
  further debate, 454;
  substitute moved requiring Speaker of the House to obtain the
      proceedings of the Court, 454;
  postponement moved, 454;
  object of the resolution, a charge upon the President and upon the District
      Judge, 454;
  conduct of both called into view, and the reprehensibleness defended on the
      testimony before the House, 455;
  what do the resolutions amount to, 455;
  question of great importance to the American people and to the
      reputation of the House, 455;
  doubtful if the President has acted with propriety or not, 455;
  particulars of the case, 455;
  further debate, 456;
  motion to postpone negatived, 456;
  adoption of the resolution negatived, 456;
  Mr. Livingston's resolutions considered, 457;
  record of Circuit Court of New Jersey, 457;
  change of conduct in the Executive, 457;
  Committee disagree with Mr. Livingston's resolutions, 457;
  will the House concur, considered, 457;
  conduct of the Executive cannot be justly charged with the errors
      imputed to it, 458;
  the case within the 27th article of the Treaty between U. S.
      and Great Britain, 458;
  was the murder committed within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, 458;
  extent of a nation's jurisdiction examined, 458;
  jurisdiction of a nation at sea, 459;
  illustrations, 459;
  piracy, 459, 460;
  application of the Treaty, 460;
  act of Congress considered, 461;
  does not comprehend case of murder committed in a foreign ship of war, 461;
  English cases cited, 462;
  indictments found at Trenton, 462;
  bearing on jurisdiction, 462;
  secondly, the case was a case for Executive not Judicial decision, 462;
  this point examined, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466;
  the President, in exercising this power and in performing
     the duty it enjoins, has not committed an unauthorized
     interference with Judicial decisions, 467;

  this point examined, 467, 468;
  House agree with Committee of the Whole in their disagreement
      to the resolutions, 469;
  committee discharged from further consideration, 469.

ROSS, JAMES, Senator from Penn., 6, 119, 171, 322, 400, 485, 665;
  on disputed presidential elections, 406;
  on the Mississippi question, 668.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Rules for the Election of President_ reported, 529.

RUTHERFORD, JOHN, Senator from New Jersey, 3, 117, 175.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

RUTHERFORD, ROBERT, Representative from Va., 14;
  on the address to the President, 28;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 41;
  on petition of Hugh L. White, 49;
  on liability of U. S. to a State for war expenses, 51;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58;
  on compensation of President and other officers, 65;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 72;
  on increase of duties on salt, 75;
  on the accommodation of the President, 89, 91.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

RUTLEDGE, JOHN, Jr., Representative from South Carolina, 121, 179, 326, 429,
      505, 694;
  on answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 132;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duties, 158;
  on answer to President's message, 181;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 183, 187;
  on naval expenditure, 198;
  on report on the Quakers' memorial, 209;
  on the limits of Georgia, 222;
  on relations with France, 228;
  on the bill to raise a provisional army, 246, 248;
  on the naturalization laws, 256;
  on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 263;
  on intercourse with France, 294;
  on the capture of French vessels, 362;
  on petition of free blacks, 437, 438, 440, 441, 442;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 451, 454;
  on the bill against the slave-trade, 475, 476;
  on reporting the debates, 508;
  for a mausoleum to Washington, 514;
  on a bill relative to District of Columbia, 523;
  on repeal of internal taxes, 579;
  on the collection of internal revenue, 590;
  on reducing duties on imports, 591;
  on imprisonment for debt, 593;
  against repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 632;
  in favor of relief for French spoliations, 645;
  on a public discussion of cession of Louisiana, 698;
  on taking up the French spoliation subject, 733.


S

_Savannah, relief to._--Resolution to afford some relief to the sufferers by the
      late fire at Savannah, debated, 39;
  most calamitous event of the kind in United States--relief
     was granted to sufferers by fire at St. Domingo--if it was
     just in case of foreigners, it was equally so in the case of
     citizens, 40;
  if the unfortunate have any claim on the Government, none could
      have greater, 40;
  the city is a wide waste of ruin, 40;
  if relief is granted in this case, it should be also to New York and
      Charleston, and other places, 40;
  no occasion for insurance companies if Government makes good these losses, 40;
  the principle a bad one, 40;
  this is a distinct case, 40;
  the loss unexampled--only a contribution is asked, 40;
  it will not serve as a precedent, 40;
  motion to go into Committee of the Whole lost, 40;
  motion to discharge the committee made, 40;
  more respect due to the feelings of the sufferers than to dispose
      of the subject without discussion, 40;
  the Legislature of Pennsylvania had contributed, 40;
  $10,000 were given to sufferers in St. Domingo, 40;
  relief granted to the daughters of Count de Grasse, 41;
  too tenacious about approaching the treasury, 41;
  duty of Government to relieve such distress, 41;
  what would $30,000 be when divided among all the people of the Union, 41;
  motion to go into Committee of the Whole carried, 41;
  neither the act for relief to sufferers in St. Domingo, nor to the
      daughters of Count de Grasse, in point, 41;
  let gentlemen put their finger on that part of the constitution which
      gave the House power to grant relief, 41;
  if the United States become underwriters for the whole Union, where shall
      the line be drawn? 41;
  the constitution does not authorize any such grant, 41;
  our duty to grant relief from humanity and from policy, 41;
  no difference between the Constitution of the United States
     and the Constitution of Pennsylvania, yet the House of the
     latter had voted unanimously, 42;
  members, as individuals, can subscribe, but it is not constitutional to afford
      relief from the treasury, 42;
  if the principle is adopted it should be general--every sufferer has
      an equal claim, 42;
  motion to add Lexington to Savannah, 42;
  the House cannot undertake to make good individual misfortunes, 42;
  but the line is distinct between individual and national, and this is
      a national calamity, 42;
  Savannah and Lexington should not be united, 43;
  the former is an important place, 43;
  Lexington had not asked for relief, 43;
  our duty to pay claims of distressed soldiers first, 43;
  this amendment designed to defeat a laudable object, 43;
  this case a sharp conflict between humanity and the constitution, 43;
  amendment lost, 43;
  the greatness of the calamity is admitted and the
     disposition to relieve entire--a written constitution,
     however, prescribes the manner in which money shall be drawn
     from the treasury, yet it is impossible to obtain absolute
     directions in every case, 43;
  the objects are specified in the eighth section, yet many laws have passed not
      exactly specified, 43;
  the constitution cannot be administered under so rigorous and mechanical a
      construction, 43;
  the principle is the thing aimed at for establishment, 44;
  it is not what generosity and humanity require, but what the constitution
      and duty require, 44;
  disagreed to in committee, 44.

SCHUREMAN, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 121, 180, 326;
  Senator from New Jersey, 400, 481;
  resigns seat in Senate, 487.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Seat of Government_, resolution relative to proper measures to be adopted
      preparatory to removal of, 470;
  bill to make further progress for removal and accommodation of the Government
      considered, 472;
  motion to fill blanks for expenses, 473.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

SEDGWICK, THEODORE, Senator from Massachusetts, 5, 114, 171;
  elected President _pro tem._ of Senate, 173;
  Representative from Massachusetts, 429, 497;
  elected Speaker, 429;
  speech, 429;
  acknowledges thanks of House, 538.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Seditious practices_, bill for restraint of, 295;
  details of do., 296;
  bill for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States
      considered, 305;
  its outlines, 305;
  motion to reject it, 305;
  necessity of the law, 305;
  extensive combinations exist, 306;
  freedom of the press an example, 306;
  effects of such liberty in France, 306;
  true meaning of liberty of the press, 306;
  its extent in this country, 307;
  it is striking at the root of a republican government to restrict the use of
      speaking and writing, 307;
  features of the bill, 307;
  the bill in direct opposition to the constitution, 308;
  operation of such laws, 308;
  does the situation of the country require any law of this kind, 308;
  the bill has two objects--to punish conspiracies and calumnies against the
      Government, 309;
  question on rejection of the bill lost, 310;
  question on its passage, 316;
  not within the powers of the House to act on this subject, 316;
  consider its effects, 316;
  had the constitution cognizance of these offences, and had its amendments
      taken that away? 317;
  this is the commencement of a system which may be extended to religious
      establishments, 317;
  prosecutions for libel cannot take place under general Government, 318;
  further debate, 318;
  bill passed, 319.

  _Resolution that it is inexpedient_ to repeal the sedition law
      considered, 378;
    objectionable clause, 378;
    the constitutional argument in relation thereto, 379;
    power of Congress over the press, 379;
    is it proper for Congress to possess the power claimed for it, 380;
    arguments in support of it examined, 381, 382, 383, 384;
    resolution carried, 384;
    question that the bill for repeal of part be engrossed, 535;
    grounds upon which the original bill was passed, 535;
    experience of the last two years, 535;
    further remarks, 536;
    engrossment refused, 536.

_Senate._--Reply to the valedictory of John Adams as Vice President, 9;
  special session at inauguration of John Adams, 10;
  meets the House to count votes for President, 62;
  answer to President Adams' first message, 117;
  adjournment of, at 1st session, 5th Congress, 119;
  answer to President's message, 2d session, 5th Congress, 169;
  Legislative session adjourned, 175;
  Executive session, 175;
  adjourned, 178;
  answer to President's message at 3d session, 5th Congress, 322;
  form of warrant of, to be issued for apprehension of William Duane, 426;
  adjournment 1st session, 6th Congress, 427;
  message to House on eulogium to Washington, 447;
  answer to President's message 2d session, 6th Congress, 483;
  answer to address of Jefferson on retiring from Vice Presidency, 488;
  special session convened March 4, 1801, 489;
  secret session to ratify convention with French Republic, 492;
  adjourns 1st session, 7th Congress, 569.

SEWALL, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 15, 120, 180, 326, 429;
  on expatriation, 149, 150, 152;
  on tax on lawyers, 156;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 161;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 184;
  against weekly licenses to distillers, 194;
  on naval expenditure, 197;
  on breach of privilege, 205, 208;
  on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 212;
  on relations with France, 228;
  on a provisional army, 243;
  on establishing the navy department, 249;
  on the naturalization laws, 253, 256, 259;
  on a provisional army, 275;
  on the persons to be excluded from citizenship, 278, 279;
  on bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 281, 282, 283;
  on instructions to armed vessels, 286;
  on a marine corps, 292;
  on intercourse with France, 293;
  on the abrogation of the treaty with France, 310, 312.

SHEAFE, JAMES, Senator from New Hampshire, 544.

SHEPARD, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497,
      569, 693;
  on military appropriations, 252;
  on the bill relative to the protection of commerce, 288.

SHERBURNE, JOHN S., Representative from New Hampshire, 14;
  on the address to the President, 20;
  on the accommodation of the President, 92.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

SINNICKSON, THOMAS, Representative from New Jersey, 121, 179, 329.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

SITGREAVES, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 120, 180;
  on the address to the President, 17, 24, 31;
  on land for Canadian refugees, 45;
  on kidnapping negroes, 47;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58;
  on the accommodation of the President, 88, 89, 90;
  on naval appropriations, 99, 100, 104;
  on liberation of Lafayette, 109;
  on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 132, 140;
  on expatriation, 150, 152;
  on tax on lawyers, 156;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 158, 160;
  on foreign intercourse, 201;
  on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 211, 212, 214;
  on relations with France, 225;
  on the naturalization laws, 256, 258, 260;
  on a new census for a direct tax, 265;
  on admission of aliens to citizenship, 279;
  on letters of marque, 299;
  on the abrogation of the treaty with France, 310, 311.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Slave Act_, Mississippi, for bringing slaves into, 427.

_Slavery, prohibiting_ it in a Territory, _see Territories_.

_Slavery, prohibition_ of, in a Territory, debate on, 217.

_Slave Trade, &c._, bill from Senate to prohibit carrying on, considered, 474;
  manner of the passage of the former act, 474;
  conveniences of the commerce, 475;
  further debate, 475;
  most defective bill, 475;
  motion to refer to a select committee, 476;
  too late in the session, 476;
  the New England States should enjoy the profit of this traffic as well as the
English, 476;
  present law does not stop the trade, 476;
  its extent, 476;
  bill committed, 476;
  bill passed, 477.

_Slavery and Slave Trade._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Slaves emancipated_ from West Indies, memorial respecting, 725.

SKINNER, THOMPSON J., Representative from Massachusetts, 57, 182.

SMILIE, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 429, 497, 569, 693;
  on petition of free blacks, 437;
  against a mausoleum to Washington, 513;
  on bill relative to District of Columbia, 523, 524, 526;
  on the apportionment bill, 574;
  on repeal of internal taxes, 580;
  on imprisonment for debt, 593;
  on call for papers relative to cession of Louisiana, 699;
  on amendment to the Bankrupt Act, 724;
  on compensation to the ex-United States judges 730;
  on taking up the French spoliation subject, 788;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 736;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 738.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

SMITH, DANIEL, Senator from Tennessee, 321.

SMITH, ISAAC, Representative from New Jersey, 14;
  on kidnapping negroes, 46.

SMITH, ISRAEL, Representative from Vermont, 14, 569, 694.

SMITH, JEREMIAH, Representative from New Hampshire, 14, 121;
  on the accommodation of the President, 91;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 53.

SMITH, JOHN, Representative from New York, 497, 569, 693.

SMITH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 569, 693.

SMITH, JOHN COTTON, Representative from Connecticut, 497, 569, 693;
  on a mausoleum to Washington, 516.

SMITH, JOSIAH, Representative from Massachusetts, 569, 693.

SMITH, NATHANIEL, Representative from Connecticut, 14, 120, 179, 326;
  on naval appropriations, 78;
  on expatriation, 151;
  on foreign intercourse, 203;
  on relations with France, 231;
  on the naturalization laws, 256;
  on a provisional army, 274;
  on bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 281.

SMITH, SAMUEL, Representative from Maryland, 14, 135, 180, 326, 569, 693,
      429, 497;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 54;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 73, 74;
  on _tacking_ bills, 77;
  on indirect taxes, 84;
  on arming merchant vessels, 147, 148;
  on relations with France, 241;
  on a provisional army, 247;
  on establishing the Navy Department, 249;
  on the naturalization laws, 254;
  on temporary direct tax, 271;
  on direct taxes, 303;
  on abrogation of treaty with France, 313;
  on intercourse with France, 320;
  on intercourse With France and St. Domingo, 334, 339;
  on the law of retaliation, 388;
  on reporting the debates, 510;
  on protection against the Barbary powers, 571;
  on the apportionment bill, 576;
  on the Mediterranean trade, 584;
  on French spoliations, 640, 647;
  on call for papers relative to cession of Louisiana, 698, 700, 715;
  on amendment to the Bankrupt Act, 725.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

SMITH, SAMUEL H., memorial to House relative to reporting the debates, 505;
  letter to Senate respecting reports of their proceedings, 545.

SMITH, WILLIAM, Representative from South Carolina, 14, 121, 179, 326;
  on address to the President, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 40, 41;
  on kidnapping negroes, 46, 47;
  on liability of United States to a State for war expenses, 50;
  on printing expenditure, 57;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 59, 60;
  on the purchase of a site for a navy yard, 66;
  on increase of duties, 71;
  on naval appropriation, 76, 78, 79;
  on indirect taxes, 83;
  on military and naval appropriations, 94;
  on the military establishment, 96, 97, 98;
  on naval appropriations, 99, 101, 104;
  on military and naval appropriations, 107;
  on liberation of Lafayette, 109;
  answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 127, 139, 141;
  offered resolutions relative to defensive measures, 144, 145;
  on resolutions relative to defensive measures, 146;
  to provide further naval force, 148, 149;
  on expatriation, 150, 151, 152;
  on tax on lawyers, 156;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157, 159, 161;
  on duty on stamps, 162;
  on additional duty on salt, 163;
  appointed Minister to Portugal, 180.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

SOUTHARD, HENRY, Representative from New Jersey, 569, 693;
  against resolution relative to extinguishing State balances, 596;
  to postpone resolution relative to the mint, 695;
  on jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, 741.

_South Carolina._--Vote for President, 62, 487;
  militia, vindication of, 273.

SPAIGHT, RICHARD DOBBS, Representative from North Carolina, 328, 497;
  on intercourse with France, 345.

SPRAGUE, PELEG, Representative from New Hampshire, 191, 326;
  on intercourse with France, 346.

SPRIGG, RICHARD, JUNR., Representative from Maryland, 14, 120, 179, 569;
  on a National University, 36, 38;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 41;
  on compensation of President and other officers, 64;
  on relations with France, 225, 226.

SPRIGG, THOMAS, Representative from Maryland, 60.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

STANFORD, RICHARD, Representative from North Carolina, 121, 179, 326, 429,
497, 569, 693.

STANLEY, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 569, 693;
  against repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 597;
  on the reading the letter of James McHenry, 696.

STANTON, JOSEPH, JUNR., Representative from Rhode Island, 569, 693.

_State Balances_, report of committee on 534;
  resolution for a committee to inquire into expediency of extinguishing certain
      balances due from States, &c., 594;
  debate thereon, 594, 595, 596;
  motion lost, 596;
  report of committee, 639;
  bill to extinguish claims of United States against certain States
      considered, 640;
  some of the States believe they were wronged in the settlement made, 640;
  rule adopted for apportioning the expenses of the war considered, 640;
  the original contract, 640;
  effect of adopting an enumeration of inhabitants made seven or eight years
      after the war, 641;
  the rule unjust and unequal, 641;
  what has New York done? 641;
  further debate, 642;
  bill ordered to be engrossed, 642;
  bill postponed, 647.

_Stenographer_ to the Senate, admission of, 545;
  to the House, debate on, 583, 584.

STERRET, LIEUT., his officers and crew, 592.

STEWART, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 528, 569, 693.

STOCKTON, RICHARD, Senator from New Jersey, 3, 117, 165, 321.

STODDERT, BENJAMIN, letter of to commanders of armed vessels, 333.

STONE, DAVID, Representative from North Carolina, 429, 498, 545, 664;
  on the repeal of the Judiciary Establishment, 558.

STRATTON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 569, 696.

STRUDWICK, WILLIAM, Representative from North Carolina, 17.

_Suability of States._--On report authorizing the President to make inquiry if
certain States adopted proposed amendment to constitution on suability
     of States, 86;
  question whether eleven States ratifying the ten amendments in 1791, should be
      considered three-fourths of fourteen, or whether a division of States
      could be made? 86;
  the fourth part of fourteen is three and a half, if a State
     cannot be divided, then four States must be taken instead of
     three and a half as one-fourth of fourteen, 87;
  eleven States have ratified the amendments, but are not twelve of the fourteen
      required, 87;
  discussion of the subject, 87, 88.

SUMTER, THOMAS, Representative from South Carolina, 121, 188, 429, 497;
  Senator from South Carolina, 545, 569, 661;
  vindication of South Carolina militia, 273.

SWANWICK, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 120, 179;
  on the address to the President, 20, 24, 26;
  on kidnapping negroes, 45, 46, 47;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 58;
  on the purchase of a site for a navy yard, 66;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 72, 73;
  on naval appropriations, 76, 77, 99, 100, 103;
  on liberation of Lafayette, 108;
  on answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 135;
  on defensive measures, 144, 147;
  on a naval armament, 154;
  moves ten dollars duty on attorney's licenses, 155;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 159;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 183.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

SWIFT, ZEPHANIAH, Representative from Connecticut, 14.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

SYMMES, JOHN C.--Contract for land, 70;
  particulars of his case, 81;
  case of, 567.


T

TALIAFERRO, BENJAMIN, Representative from Georgia, 429, 497.

TALIAFERRO, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 569, 694.

TALLEYRAND, letter to American Minister in Paris, 304.

TALLMADGE, BENJAMIN, Representative from Connecticut, 569, 693.

TATTNALL, JOSIAH, Senator from Georgia, 6, 114, 171, 323.

_Taxes, direct and indirect_, proposition for a tax on land and on slaves, 52;
  should be separated, 52;
  associated together in order to do justice, and conform to
     the established usage of a large tract of country where one
     tax without the other was objectionable, 52;
  the resolution for a tax on land carried, 52.

  _Direct tax on slaves considered_, 52;
    reason for bringing this species of personal property under view whilst
      all other personal property unnoticed, 52;
    slaves are laborers--not right to vote to tax laborers, 53;
    a tax on slaves would lighten the tax on land in the Southern
    States--would the tax on land be equal? 53;
    a direct tax should be equal as possible, 53;
    a tax on slaves the most productive tax in the Southern States, 54;
    exact equality impossible, 54;
    personal property in the Southern States should not bear a part of the
      burden whilst exempted elsewhere, 54;
    the objections can be completely obviated, 54;
    enumeration of slaves adds to the expense, 55;
    propriety of taxing personal property in one State and not in another, 55;
    the South is ready to pay the tax on slaves, 55;
    those who oppose the tax on slaves oppose all direct taxes, 56;
    motion to tax slaves carried, 56; _note_, 56;
    income and expenditure considered, 82;
    doubtful if a majority of the country in favor of the measure, 82;
    no deficiency in the revenue at present to make additional taxes
      necessary, 82;
    great argument for direct taxes is the uncertainty of a revenue
      from commerce, 82;
    receipts of 1797, 83;
    expenses of 1798, 83;
    receipts and expenditures of 1797, 83;
    for a sufficiency of revenue for 1798 direct taxes required, 84;
    a plan for direct taxes should be formed in case of extremity, 84;
    revenue for 1797, 84;
    estimated expenses for 1797, 85.

  _Bill for Stamp Duties_, 149;
    do. considered, 155;
    moved to add certificates of naturalization, 155;
    naturalized persons cannot refuse to pay a small tax for the right
      of citizenship, 155;
    tax would fall heavy on persons who came here to live by their labor, 155;
    amendment carried, 155.

  _Moved to tax lawyers' licenses_ $10, 155;
    carried, 155;
    moved to extend the tax to lawyers in State, as well as United States
      courts, 155;
    lawyers in some States already highly taxed, 155;
    if a tax of this kind is right, it might be extended to any other officer
      of State Governments, 156;
    not unconstitutional, 156;
    State lawyers a fair object for taxation--motion withdrawn, 156.

  _Moved to tax deeds of conveyance_, 156;
    this would clash with State jurisdiction, 156;
    the tax a good and profitable one, 156;
    interferes with State Governments, 156;
    further debated, 156;
    motion lost, 157.

  _Clause exempting bank-notes_, moved to strike out, 157;
    all notes should be placed on the same footing, 157;
    subject too important and intricate for this session, 157;
    object is to tax the right an individual has of transferring his
      property and the evidences of it, 157;
    no objection to the principle, but to the convenience of the thing, 157;
    it is said, do not meddle with corporations, 157;
    it cannot be proved that stamping bank notes will embarrass their
      circulation, 158;
    motion essentially just and right, 158;
    operation of the tax considered, 158;
    objections considered, 158;
    foreign banks commute with their governments, 159;
    the introduction of this principle will destroy the bill, 159;
    analogy between private notes and bank notes? 159;
    great difficulties attend its operation, 159;
    no danger of a run on a bank, 159;
    a beginning should be made, 160;
    not the intention of opponents to screen the moneyed interest, 160;
    how shall the tax be arranged, 160;
    commutation can be made, 160;
    amount of the tax less than one per cent., 161;
    difference between bank and individual notes, 161;
    an estimate showing the operation of the tax on banks, 161;
    further debate, 162;
    bill passed, 162;
    _note_, 162.

  _Duties on Distilled Spirits_, and on stills under debate, 193;
    proposition to allow to distillers weekly licenses, 194;
    designed to accommodate distillers from fruit, 194;
    distillers from fruit pay less duty than distillers from grain, 194;
    this proposition will give them an unfair advantage, 194;
    other objections in detail, 194;
    most distillers of peach-brandy now excluded under present law from
      distilling early fruit, 194;
    reason in favor at length, 194; capacity of peach stills, 195;
    motion carried, 195;
    present law on entry of stills, 195;
    four cents per gallon on weekly licenses adopted, 195;
    bill of Senate referred to a select committee, 302;
    resolution to inquire into the expediency of repealing laws laying duties on
      stills, distilled spirits, &c., considered, 579;
    time to commence proceedings on this subject, 579;
    it reduces the revenue, 579; reasons for referring the subject stated, 579;
    other subjects to be decided before this should be, 579;
    motion seeks information, 580;
    should be taken up at once, 580;
    President said the taxes might be dispensed with, if expenses were
      reduced, 580;
    information needed, 580;
    further debate, 580, 581;
    reference carried, 581.

    _Resolution to raise additional revenue annually_ by tax on
      land, houses, and slaves, to be apportioned according to the
      last census, considered in committee, 265;
    moved to strike out last census, 265;
    proper to have new census before the tax was assessed, 265;
    great inconvenience thereby incurred, 265;
    debate upon the census for taxation, 265;
    on report to the House moved to strike out "annually," 266;
    the tax not wanted for permanent revenue, but to meet present
      exigencies, 266;
    examination of present revenue, 266;
    the present revenues are equal to the expenditures, including
      redemption of public debt, except in case of war, 267;
    imposts and tonnage yielded a million more than the estimate, 267;
    arguments are presented as if a state of profound peace prevailed, and the
      defences of the country of no importance, 267;
    course of members on this subject, 268;
    censure of the House by members, 268;
    debate adjourned, 269;
    motion to strike out "annually" withdrawn, and limitation moved, 270;
    if laid for a number of years, the tax will be more unpopular, 271;
    it depends on a contingency whether the tax will be wanted or not, 271;
    it is a new tax, unsatisfactory to some parts, and should be of
      short duration, 271;
    no question about the propriety of levying a direct tax--only difference
      related to time of operation, 271;
    fears of the member from Pennsylvania, 272;
    two reasons against striking out the word "annually," 272;
    amendment lost, 272; word "annually" struck out, 272;
    bill providing for the valuation of houses and lands and enumeration
      of slaves read a third time, 302;
    the tax will bear hard on Kentucky, money is so scarce there, 302;
    such is the case of Tennessee, 302;
    both States have many advantages in respect to this tax, 302;
    the money was necessary, and the law as good as it well could be made, 308;
    loans and taxes the only resource, 303;
    no other objects so suitable for taxation, 303;
    fears respecting the ability of Kentucky and Tennessee not be realized, 303;
    tax not just and equal, 304;
    every species of property should be taxed, 304;
    bill passed, 304;
    bill to amend act for laying and collecting direct tax considered, 586;
    repeals clause for redemption of land sold for unpaid taxes, 586;
    this clause inoperative on account of its expense, 586;
    will be a hardship to non-residents, 587;
    non-payment had arisen in Southern States from a want of collectors, 587;
    committee rose, 587.

TAZEWELL, HENRY, Senator from Virginia, 5, 117, 323;
  decease of, 344.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

TAZEWELL, LYTTLETON W., Representative from Virginia, 498.

_Tennessee_, vote for President, 62, 487;
  admission of, _see Index_, vol. 1.

TENNEY, SAMUEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 505, 569, 693.

_Territories._--Subject of fixing the limits of Georgia, and erecting the
Mississippi territory considered, 217;
  amendment proposed, "after the consent of the Legislature of Georgia shall
      have been obtained," 217;
  claim of the United States to this territory examined, 217;
  to proceed without consent of Georgia unconstitutional, 218;
  United States possess the right, 218; who is the judge? 218;
  amendment will defeat the bill, 218;
  shall the territory remain defenceless? 218;
  question of right examined, 218;
  point of right be settled hereafter, 218;
  terms required by Georgia, 219;
  proposed measure absolutely necessary for the people of that territory, 219;
  arguments so far do not show the right of the United States, but only the
      convenience of the measure, 219;
  advantages of the measure to Georgia as a protection against the Indians, 219;
  most proper that the amendment should be adopted, 219;
  the only reason for the amendment is, that if the bill pass without it,
      offence will be given to Georgia, 220;
  neither party has governed the territory, and Georgia cannot take offence
      in we hold it till the dispute is settled, 220;
  particulars relative to the territory, 220;
  Georgia always disposed to cede, 221;
  further discussion, 221;
  amendment lost, 221.

  _Clause providing that slavery shall not be forbidden_, motion to
      strike out, 221;
    clause very proper in the North-western Territory, but very improper in the
      Mississippi Territory, 221;
    it would banish all the settlers, and exclude those intending to go
      there, 221;
    Congress should so far respect the rights of humanity as not to
      legalize slavery any further than it now exists, 222;
    is it proper on every occasion to bring forward the Southern States
      in an odious light? 222;
    an immediate insurrection will take place if this is adopted, 222;
    the motion will not be withdrawn, 222;
    the tendency of this motion is not really to further the rights of man, 223;
    it is a serious attack on the property of the country, 223;
    the amendment should not be rejected on the ground of jurisdiction, 223;
    only objection to the amendment is with regard to the people
      settled there, 223;
    interest of the United States to reject the amendment, 223;
    spreading the blacks over the country, 224;
    question negatived, 224; _note_, 224.

  _Report on the credentials_ of the Delegate from the Mississippi Territory,
      576;
    Georgia has the right to the soil, and the laws of Congress for the
      government of the Territory are void, 576;
    the Delegate has no right to a seat, 576;
    no further proceedings should take place till the dispute is settled, 576;
    the only question is whether the member is duly chosen, 576;
    wait till the dispute is settled, 577;
    let the report lie on the table, and the member keep his seat according
      to former practice, 577;
    sufficient facts to decide the case without prejudicing the claims
      of Georgia, 577;
    report agreed to, 578.

THATCHER, GEORGE, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429,
      498, 693;
  on the address to the President, 20;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 57, 59;
  on answer to President Adams' first message, 124, 140;
  on the Quakers' memorial, 183, 187;
  on breach of privilege, 208;
  on report on Quakers' memorial, 209;
  on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 210, 211;
  on the limits of Georgia, 221, 222, 223, 224;
  on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 263;
  on petition of free blacks, 438, 440, 442, 443;
  on reporting the debates, 509.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

THOMAS, DAVID, Representative from New York, 569, 693;
  in favor of a bill to extinguish State balances, 640.

THOMAS, JOHN CHEW, Representative from Maryland, 429, 497.

THOMAS, RICHARD, Representative from Pennsylvania, 14, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497.

THOMPSON, JOHN, Representative from New York, 429, 497.

THOMPSON, MARK, Representative from New Jersey, 14, 120, 180, 329.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

THOMPSON, PHILIP R., Representative from Virginia, 569, 693.

TICHENOR, ISAAC, Senator from Vermont, 3, 113.

TILLINGHAST, THOMAS, Representative from Rhode Island, 179, 326, 569, 693.

_Title_, of President, &c., _see Index_, vol. 1.

TRACY, URIAH, Senator from Connecticut, 3, 113, 165, 322, 399, 481, 541, 661;
  on breach of privilege, 409, 416, 418;
  elected President of Senate, _pro tem._ 427.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Treason and Sedition_, bill to define, 175.

_Treasury Department_, bill providing that the Secretary shall lay before
      Congress annual report with plans for improving revenue, &c., 478;
  House only has right to originate money bills, 478;
  not Senate or Secretary, 478;
  ordered to third reading, 478.
  _See Index_, vol. 1, _Executive Departments_.

_Treaty with Great Britain_, motion that no person be delivered up
      under the 27th article, 476;
  debated, 476;
  lost, 476.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

TRIGG, ABRAM, Representative from Virginia, 120, 179, 326, 429, 497, 569,
      694.

TRIGG, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 121, 179, 326, 497, 569, 693.

TRUMBULL, JOHN, presents to the Senate two prints, 400;
  letter to House, offering two prints, 430; _note_, 430.

TRUXTON, CAPTAIN, resolution to present a medal to, 469;
  no official information received on the subject, 470;
  resolution does not go far enough, 470;
  resolution to call for information adopted, 470;
  report of Secretary of the Navy in accordance therewith, 470;
  resolutions considered, 471;
  was it the duty of the commander of the Constellation to persist in
      the chase, and compel to action a ship of such superior force? 471;
  rash conduct, 471;
  law of Congress prescribes duty of naval commanders, 471;
  nothing in their conduct but what was highly laudatory, 471;
  frigates were constructed for protecting commerce--was this
     protecting commerce, to reduce his ship to a wreck? 472;
  resolution carried, 472.


U

_United States Judges_, memorial of to Senate, 665;
  petitions of, 727.

UPHAM, GEORGE P., Representative from New Hampshire, 569, 693.


V

VAN ALLEN, JONATHAN E., Representative from New York, 14, 120, 179, 326.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Van Cortlandt, Philip_, Representative from New York, 14, 120, 180, 329, 429,
497.

VAN HORN, ISAAC, Representative from Pennsylvania, 569, 693.

VAN NESS, JOHN P., Representative from New York, 569, 693;
  on the apportionment bill, 574;
  case of, considered, 696;
  the member of the House has exercised the authority of a
     major of militia, under the authority of the United States,
     and thereby forfeited his seat, resolution to inquire
     considered, 696;
  important as deciding a principle, 696;
  resolution should go to committee on elections, 696;
  reference ordered, 697;
  report of committee, 725;
  explanation of Van Ness, 726;
  resolutions unanimously adopted;
  on the case of Van Ness, 697, 726.

VAN RENSSELAER, KILLIAN K., Representative from New York, 569, 693.

VARNUM, JOSEPH BRADLEY, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 120, 179, 326,
      429, 497, 569, 693;
  on the petition of manumitted slaves, 60;
  on military appropriations, 98, 99;
  on military and naval appropriations, 107;
  on tax on lawyers' licenses, 155;
  on the Georgia limits, 221;
  on temporary direct tax, 272;
  on bill relative to protection to commerce, 291;
  on a marine corps, 292;
  on direct taxes, 304;
  on the case of Jonathan Robbins, 455;
  on repeal of internal taxes, 580. _See Index_, vol. 1.

VENABLE, ABRAHAM, Representative from Virginia, 14, 120, 180, 326;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 42;
  on lands for Canadian refugees, 45;
  on naval appropriations, 76, 77, 101, 103;
  on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 140;
  on expatriation, 151;
  on exempting bank notes from stamp duty, 157, 159;
  on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 212;
  on the naturalization laws, 255, 256;
  on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 263;
  relative to letters of marque, 297.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Vermont._--Vote for President, 62, 487.

_Veto_ of army bill, by President Washington, 95.

VINING, JOHN, Senator from Delaware, 6,114. _See Index_, vol. 1.

_Virginia._--Vote for President, 62, 487.


W

WADSWORTH, PELEG, Representative from Massachusetts, 14, 179, 326, 429, 497,
      570, 693.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

WALKER, BENJAMIN, Representative from New York, 569.

WALN, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 326, 529, 497;
  presents petition of free blacks, 436, 437;
  on petition of free blacks, 438, 440, 441;
  on the bill prohibiting the slave-trade, 476.

WASHINGTON, reply to address of Senate, 5;
  present at the inauguration of John Adams, 11; _note_ 11;
  vote for, as President, in 1796, 62;
  vetoes army bill, 96;
  administration of, _note_, 111;
  letter accepting Lieutenant-Generalship, 177;
  as Lieutenant General, visits the House, 327;
  Mrs., reply to resolutions of Congress, 405;
  his death announced to House, 483;
  memory of, resolution on, 478;
  bill for erecting mausoleum reported, 478;
  discussion, 478;
  bill passed, 479;
  in Senate, bill to erect mausoleum, considered, 485;
  amendments agreed to, 486;
  bill passed, 486;
  bill to erect a mausoleum considered, 503;
  first section, 503;
  amendment moved to erect a monument, 503;
  a mausoleum preferable to a monument, 503;
  propriety of a monument, 503;
  a mausoleum more imperishable, 503;
  the adoption of the amendment equivalent to rejecting every plan, 504;
  expense of the proposed measure, 504;
  difference of expense between the two measures, 511;
  proceedings of last session, 512;
  bill recommitted, 512;
  proceedings of Congress in 1783; bill reported for a mausoleum as
      before, excepting a difference in materials, 513;
  various amendments proposed, 513;
  expense discussed, 514;
  blank filled with $200,000, 514;
  bill on third reading, 515;
  equestrian statue more proper than a mausoleum, 515;
  suitableness of a mausoleum, 515;
  the idea that a mausoleum would be equal to the character of Washington
      preposterous, 516;
  a tedious and useless debate, 516;
  a departure from the original plan a violation of the feelings of
      Mrs. Washington, 516;
  further debate, 517;
  bill ordered to be engrossed, 518;
  bill passed, 522;
  amendments of Senate considered, 538;
  House agree, 538.
  _See Index_, vol. 1, _Washington_.

_Washington City_, first meeting of Congress at, 481.

WATSON, JAMES, Senator from New York, 322, 399.

WELLS, WILLIAM HILL, Senator from Delaware, 323, 400, 481, 540, 664;
  on the resolutions relative to the right of the United States to the
      free navigation of the Mississippi, 680.

_Western lands_, resolutions relative to, 448.

WHEATON, JOSEPH, elected sergeant-at-arms to House, 430, 569.

WHITE, HUGH LAWSON, petition of, 48;
  report of committee on, 48;
  claim of, for services against the Indians, 48;
  committee report the expedition as undertaken without
     authority from the President, under laws of the United
     States, but the Indians highly aggressive, 48; _note_, 48;
  expedition just and necessary, 48;
  Indians carried the station and threatened to carry the seat of
      government, 48;
  the rations found for the troops on the expedition had been paid for,
      and no reason exists why the whole expense should not be paid, 49;
  if the expedition was unconstitutional, it should not affect the
      soldier who was obliged to obey his superior, 49;
  if this claim is allowed, it establishes a principle for all the militia
      in that expedition, 49;
  the expedition was a necessary one, 49;
  Congress were in session, and received information, but took no
      order thereon, 50;
  the constitution prescribes that if a State is actually
     invaded, it may engage in war; this is a case coming within
     the constitutional limits, 50; _note_, 50;
  referred to a select committee, 51; _note_, 52.

WHITE, Right Rev. Bishop, appointed chaplain to Senate, 166.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

WHITE, SAMUEL, Senator from Delaware, 540, 661, 665;
  on the apportionment bill, 550;
  on the Mississippi question, 671.

WILLIAMS, JOHN, Representative from New York, 14, 120, 179, 326;
  on the address to the President, 18;
  on compensation of President and other officers, 64;
  on increase of duties on sugar, 71, 72;
  on the accommodation of the President, 90;
  on the military establishment, 96;
  on answer of House to President Adams' first message, 139;
  on arming merchant-vessels, 147;
  on a naval armament, 154;
  on relief to daughters of Count de Grasse, 195;
  on expenditure for the naval service, 196;
  on the case of Griswold and Lyon, 210, 211, and 212;
  on the limits of Georgia, 219;
  on relations with France, 232;
  on establishing the Navy Department, 248, 251;
  on a new census for a direct tax, 265;
  on a direct tax, 268;
  on admission of aliens to citizenship, 279;
  on instructions to armed vessels, 286;
  on the bill relative to protection to commerce, 288;
  on direct taxes, 303;
  on intercourse with France, 347.
  _See Index_, vol. 1.

WILLIAMS, LEMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 429, 497, 569, 693.

WILLIAMS, ROBERT, Representative from North Carolina, 121, 179, 725;
  on a tax on lawyers, 156;
  advocates weekly license to distillers, 194;
  on the Griswold and Lyon case, 215;
  on establishing the Navy Department, 251;
  on presents to ministers by foreign courts, 263;
  a bill relative to treatment of alien enemies, 284;
  relative to letters of marque, 297;
  relative to State balances, 595;
  on considering the French spoliations, 734.

WOODS, HENRY, Representative from Pennsylvania, 429, 497, 569, 693.

WOOSTER, GENERAL, and others, bill relative to, 664.

WRIGHT, ROBERT, Senator from Maryland, 540, 661;
  on memorial of United States Judges, 667.

WYNN, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 693.


Y

_Yeas and Nays_ in Senate on bill to accommodate the President, 9;
  in the House on amended answer to President's message, 33;
  on relief to sufferers by fire at Savannah, 44;
  on a direct tax on land, 52;
  on a direct tax on slaves, 56;
  in House on naval appropriations, 79;
  in House on bill relative to Mediterranean Powers, 81;
  on the appropriation for the accommodation of the President, 92;
  in House on naval appropriation, 105;
  in House on bill relative to military and naval appropriations, 107;
  on adoption of answer of House to President Adams' 1st message, 142;
  on a bill providing for a naval armament, 155;
  on bill laying stamp duty, 162;
  on bill laying additional duties on salt, 164;
  in Senate on act to declare treaty with France void, 173;
  in Senate on resolution authorizing Minister to Spain to receive
      presents, 173;
  in Senate on bill to define and punish treason and sedition, 173, 175;
  relative to landing French passengers, 174;
  do. on census bill, 174;
  on motion to reconsider do. 174;
  on enumeration of slaves, 174;
  on bill to encourage capture of French armed vessels, 175;
  on bill making appropriations for a naval force, 175;
  on expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 208;
  relative to claim of Amy Dardin, 213;
  on the Griswold and Lyon case, 216;
  on the bill establishing the Navy Department, 252;
  on the resolution relative to presents to our Ministers at
      foreign courts, 264;
  on the bill to raise a provisional army, 276;
  on the bill relative to alien enemies, 286;
  on the bill relative to protection of commerce, 291;
  on resolutions granting letters of marque, 300;
  on the sedition bill, 310;
  on the abrogation of the treaty with France, 316;
  on bill for sedition and punishment of crimes, 319;
  on instructions to armed vessels, 319;
  in Senate on non-intercourse with France, 324;
  do. on aliens holding lands in the Territories, 324;
  do. on vesting power of retaliation in President, 324;
  in Senate on increase of army, 325;
  on increase of salaries, 325;
  on acceptance of jurisdiction over Western Reserve, 325;
  on establishing United States post office, 325;
  on bill relative to intercourse with France, 347;
  on bill to increase the navy, 356;
  on agreeing to report of committee relative to capture of French vessels, 364;
  on the expulsion of Matthew Lyon, 372;
  on repeal of alien and sedition law, 384;
  on amendments to bill relative to disputed Presidential elections, 408;
  in Senate on resolution relative to breach of privilege, 421;
  on resolutions of Committee on Privileges, 422;
  on adopting form of warrant of Senate for apprehension of William Duane, 426;
  on Mississippi Slave Act, 427;
  relative to petition of free blacks, 444;
  on resolutions in case of Jonathan Robbins, 469;
  on the medal to Captain Truxton, 472;
  on postponing the bill relative to admirals in the navy, 474;
  on bill prohibiting the slave trade, 477;
  on the bill to erect a mausoleum for Washington, 479;
  in Senate relative to mausoleum for Washington, 486;
  relative to reporting the debates, 511;
  on the bill for a mausoleum to Washington, 518;
  on passage, 522;
  on the engrossment of the bill to repeal a part of the sedition act, 536;
  on bill in House to establish uniform system of bankruptcy, 536;
  on Senate amendments to bill for mausoleum to Washington, 538;
  in Senate on admission of a stenographer, 545;
  on the apportionment bill, 551;
  in Senate on the repeal of the Judiciary Establishment, 565;
  note, 565;
  on bill for State Government of Ohio, 566;
  on bill for relief of widows and orphans of naval and marine officers, 566;
  on repeal of Judiciary Establishment, 638;
  on bill amending naturalization laws, 639;
  on the bill relative to Ohio State Government, 653, 654;
  on passage of bill relative to Judiciary System, 655;
  in Senate on agreeing to report on memorial of United States Judges, 668;
  in Senate on the resolutions relative to the right of the United States
      to the free navigation of the Mississippi, 692;
  on reference of resolution calling for papers relative to cession
      of Louisiana, 701;
  on going into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union relative to the
      cession of Louisiana, 709, 720;
  on resolutions relative to navigation of Mississippi, 710, 711;
  on refusing prayer of late United States Judges, 731;
  on receding to the respective States jurisdiction over the District
      of Columbia, 741;
  on bill relative to importation of emancipated slaves, 742.


Z

ZANE, ISAAC, petition of, 545.


END OF VOL. II.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] A graceful compliment from Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Adams whose
competitor he had been in the election, for the President and Vice
President were not then voted for separately but the person having the
highest number of votes became President, and the next highest the Vice
President; and in this election there was only a difference of three
votes between the two highest on the list.

[2] The sensibility which was manifested when General Washington
entered, did not surpass the cheerfulness which overspread his own
countenance, nor the heartfelt pleasure with which he saw another
invested with the power and authorities that had so long been exercised
by himself.--_Marshall._

[3] In this early day, the parliamentary rule was enforced against any
reference in one House to what was done in the other.

[4] Valued by a speaker in this debate at £5000 sterling, and afterwards
given to the Washington College, Lexington, Va.

[5] Afterwards General and President. This was his first appearance in
the national councils--and characteristically--defending with his voice
those Western settlers whose defence, with the sword, was afterwards the
foundation of his national fame and political elevation.

[6] This is the true ground on which the United States becomes liable to
a State for its expenses in suppressing or repulsing Indian hostilities.
It turns upon the idea of an actual invasion, or such imminent danger of
it as not to admit of delay: then the contingency happens in which the
State may engage in war, and all the acts of Congress, and the
Government orders give way before a constitutional right. Tennessee,
like other new countries in the United States, was settled without law,
and against law. Its early settlers not only had no protection from the
Federal Government, but were under legal disabilities to pursue the
enemy. This arose from the policy of the Government to preserve peace on
the frontiers by restraining the advance of settlements, and curbing the
disposition of the people to war. The history of all the new
settlements, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is the same: people go
without law, and against law; and when they can neither be stopped by
the Government, nor driven back by the Indians, then the Government
gives them protection.

[7] The committee reported in favor of paying the brigade of General
Sevier, (300 infantry and two troops of horse,) amounting to the sum of
$22,816 and 25 cents--a very small sum for a remote expedition into the
country of a formidable Indian tribe, and so efficiently conducted as to
secure tranquillity to the frontier. It deserves to be remembered for
its promptitude, efficiency and cheapness.

[8] The solution of the enigma was, that those who voted against taxing
slaves were opposed to any direct tax whatever, and the members from the
slave States who supported the tax, did so because the taxation of lands
and slaves went together in the slave States--the people were used to
the association--and to omit slaves in the direct tax would be unjust
and unpopular, as sparing the rich and making the tax fall heavier upon
persons of less property.

[9] Yeas and nays not taken.

[10] The great naval powers of Europe show themselves sensible of this,
by proposing to the United States to abolish privateering.

[11] The whole expense of procuring peace from Algiers, and forbearance
to prey upon our citizens and commerce, and to redeem the captives, was
then about one million of dollars; and the alternative was between
paying that amount and carrying on war against her. War preparations had
begun, and six frigates had been authorized to be built. A war with
Algiers, then a formidable power, (and of course with the rest of the
Barbary States,) was a very serious undertaking to the United States at
that time--the cost great and certain--the issue uncertain. The greatest
powers of Europe paid tribute to these barbaric pirates: it was no
disgrace to the infant United States to do the same: and the redemption
of the captives was a further inducement, founded in humanity: so that
the price of peace became a question of economy.

[12] She was compensated accordingly.

[13] The resolution offered by Mr. Harper contemplated an official
interposition in behalf of Lafayette--a grave proceeding, which
President Washington had well considered beforehand, and maturely
decided against. But unofficially he had been exerting himself to
procure the release, or to mitigate the fate of the illustrious captive.
A confidential person had been sent to Berlin to solicit his discharge,
his first captivity being in Prussia; but before the arrival of the
messenger the well-guarded prisoner had been turned over to the Emperor
of Germany. Mr. Thomas Pinckney, the American Minister in London, had
been instructed to make known the wishes of the President to the
Austrian Minister at that place, and the British Ministry had been
solicited to take an interest in the application: but all in vain. As a
last attempt, and at the moment of ceasing to be President, he addressed
a private letter to the Emperor of Austria, couched in noble and feeling
terms, in which he solicited that Lafayette might be allowed to come to
the United States. The letter said: "I forbear to enlarge upon this
delicate subject. Permit me only to submit to your majesty's
consideration, whether his long imprisonment, and the confiscation of
his estate, and the indigence and dispersion of his family, and the
painful anxieties incident to all these circumstances, do not form an
assemblage of sufferings which recommend him to the mediation of
humanity? Allow me, sir, on this occasion to be its organ; and to
entreat that he may be permitted to come to this country on such
conditions, and under such restrictions as your majesty may deem it
expedient to prescribe." This touching appeal remained without effect;
and the romantic effort of Dr. Bollman having failed to save Lafayette,
after snatching him from the dungeon of Olmutz, it remained for the
glittering sword of the conqueror of Italy to command what the noble
letter of Washington failed to obtain. After the Treaty of _Campo
Formio_, an aid-de-camp of the then young General Buonaparte proceeded
to Vienna--asked the release of Lafayette--and obtained it. The Emperor,
Francis the Second, might have appeared more gracefully in the
transaction, if he had yielded the release to the letter of Washington.

[14] The close of the Fourth Congress terminates the presidency of
General Washington, and presents, a proper point for a retrospective
view of the working of the Government for the first eight years of its
existence. Such a view is full of instruction, and deserves to be taken;
and first of the finances. Moderate expenses, and moderate taxes were
the characteristics of this branch of the service. The support of the
Government, called the Civil List, and comprehending every object of
civil expenditure, was, for the year 1796, (the last of Washington's
administration,) $530,392, and the duties on imports about five millions
of dollars--or nearly ten times as much as the support of the Government
required--leaving nearly nine-tenths to go to the public debt, the
preservation of peace with the Indian tribes, defence of the frontiers,
protection of commerce in the Mediterranean; and other extraordinary
objects. This amount was produced by moderate duties--the _ad valorems_,
10, 12-1/2, 15 and 20 per centum--and mainly produced by the two first
rates, the two latter chiefly applying to objects of luxury not used by
the general mass. Thus: The amount of imports subject to the 10 and the
12-1/2 rates was $28,267,000, while those subject to 15 were $7,850,000;
and those subject to 20 per centum only the third of one million. The
average of the whole was about 13 per centum. The specific duties were
on the same moderate scale; and the cost of collecting the whole was
3.73 per cent. The interest on the public debt was three millions and a
quarter; the Military Department, $1,300,000; Naval Department,
$440,000; tribute to the Barbary powers, veiled under the name of
foreign intercourse expense, was $300,000; while the regular diplomatic
intercourse was only about $40,000. The whole expenditure of the
Government was about 5-1/2 millions: its whole revenue something
more--the excise on distilled spirits producing some $400,000. Thus,
order and economy were established in the finances. Abroad peace had
been maintained. The proclamation of neutrality, unanimously agreed upon
in the Cabinet, saved the United States from the calamity of being
involved in the wars of the French Revolution. The commercial treaty
with Great Britain stopped the depredations which the British had
commenced upon American vessels carrying provisions to France, and
obtained indemnity for depredations already committed. With Spain the
serious question of the free navigation of the Mississippi was settled;
and, in addition to the right of navigation, a place of deposit for
American produce and merchandise was obtained at New Orleans--the right
to be absolute for three years, and afterwards until an equivalent place
should be provided. (It was the subsequent violation of this right of
deposit which led to the acquisition of all Louisiana.) Safety to the
persons and property of American citizens in the Mediterranean Sea had
been obtained, according to the means usual at that time, and upon terms
to be endured until strong enough to do better. The formidable Indian
war in the North-west, and the troublesome hostilities in the
South-west, had been terminated, and peace given to the young
communities on the Kentucky and Cumberland Rivers which, commencing
without authority, were laying the foundations of future great States. A
domestic insurrection (that of Western Pennsylvania) had been quelled,
and happily without bloodshed--the exhibition of a large force, with
Washington at its head, being sufficient to forbid resistance, and a
wise humanity sparing all punishment. The new Government was solidly
established, and amidst difficulties which might have been insuperable
under any other President. Public credit, which had sunk so low under
the Confederation, had risen to a high standard under the new
Government; and a general commercial and agricultural prosperity
pervaded the land.

[15] This was an extra session, called in the early months of Mr. Adams'
administration, for the causes stated in his Message to the two Houses.

[16] The following is the speech referred to, Barras being the President
of the Directory who addressed it to Mr. Monroe:

"Mr. Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America: By
presenting to-day your letters of recall to the Executive Directory, you
give to Europe a very strange spectacle.

"France, rich in her liberty, surrounded by a train of victories, strong
in the esteem of her allies, will not abase herself by calculating the
consequences of the condescension of the American Government to the
suggestions of her former tyrants; moreover, the French Republic hopes
that the successors of Columbus, Ramhiph, and Penn, always proud of
their liberty, will never forget that they owe it to France. They will
weigh, in their wisdom, the magnanimous benevolence of the French people
with the crafty caresses of certain perfidious persons who meditate
bringing them back to their former slavery. Assure the good American
people, sir, that, like them, we adore liberty; that they will always
have our esteem; and that they will find in the French people republican
generosity, which knows how to grant peace, as it does to cause its
sovereignty to be respected. As to you, Mr. Minister Plenipotentiary,
you have combated for principles; you have known the true interests of
your country: depart with our regret. In you we give up the
representative to America, and retain the remembrance of the citizen
whose personal qualities did honor to that title."

[17] This is a view of those depredations which has been lost sight of.
Their injuries are now considered as falling exclusively upon the
merchants: it was then agreed that they fell upon the community, the
merchant indemnifying himself by insurances and increased profits.

[18] And is still so carried on.

[19] Taxed in Great Britain, with the privilege of commutation for a
gross sum.

[20] This sum which amounted to one third of the amount of the notes and
disposits, was a general rule for regulating the quantity of cash kept
to answer their current demands.

[21] This taxation of bank notes presents the ready mode of regulating
the paper currency of the States, and suppressing the mischief of small
notes which are a constant source of depredation upon the laboring part
of the community, a constant source of crime in the making and passing
counterfeit paper, and the constant expeller of the constitutional
currency. These small notes were hardly known at the time of this tax,
which was so readily imposed, and therefore were taxed lightest: now
they are a general circulation, and the most profitable part of a bank's
issues; and, therefore, should be taxed highest, both on the principle
of being most profitable to the banks and most injurious to the
community.

[22] This equilibrium was soon destroyed. The merchants soon got rid of
the stamp tax; but the farmers still bear a salt tax.

[23] This extra session having been called on account of expected
hostilities with the French Republic, the labors of Congress were
consequently limited to the two objects of defence and
revenue--preparation for defence, and providing the additional revenue
which the defence required. Both objects were accomplished. The three
frigates--Constitution, Constellation and United States, which
afterwards earned themselves a place in history--were finished and
manned. A detachment of 80,000 militia was authorized. A stamp duty was
imposed--a loan authorized--and the salt tax increased: the latter as a
temporary measure, and with an express clause against continuance,
without which it could not have passed, and in contravention of which it
was continued. Defence was the great object of the session: invasion the
danger: and its repulse by sea and land the remedy. Preparation against
invasion was, at that time, a proper policy: the progress of science,
and of the arts of peace, has superseded such policy in our day. The
electric telegraph, and the steam car, have opened a new era in
defensive war. Accumulated masses of volunteers, summoned by electricity
and transported by steam, rushed upon the invaded point and giving
incessant attacks with fresh arrivals, would exterminate any invading
force; and give the cheap, effective and extemporaneous defence which
the exigency required.

[24] An illustrious mission, nationally composed of the most eminent
citizens, three in number, and taken from different parts of the Union,
and from both political parties: Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, from South
Carolina; John Marshall, from Virginia; Elbridge Gerry, from
Massachusetts--the two first federal; Mr. Gerry, republican.

[25] Mr. Gallatin is not accurately reported. The exception extended to
all the officers of the Federal Government, and for as long a time as
their duties required them to remain in the States, and to all others
for the period of six months.

[26] In a subsequent part of this same debate, Mr. Macon retracted this
censure upon the Quakers, as being too general.

[27] Acts of limitation have been found necessary in all countries, and
in all sorts of claims, to quiet demands, bring things to settlement,
and to protect the fair dealer from stale demands, after time and
accidents have deprived him of the means of invalidating them. Necessary
in the transactions of individuals, they become still more so in the
transactions of the Government. Its officers are constantly changing,
and the knowledge of transactions continually being lost, and the
representatives of the Government without the personal interest which
stimulates inquiry and invigorates defence. The Government becomes
helpless against claims, even the most unjustifiable, after the lapse of
some years; and, without the protection of a statute of limitations, is
subject to continual impositions. This was well known to the conductors
of our Revolution, and the founders of our Federal Government; and they
took care, as they believed, to provide against a danger which they knew
to be imminent. Equally solicitous to pay every valid claim, and to
avoid the payment of unjust ones, they began even during the war to call
upon all claimants to present their demands--to furnish abstracts when
the case was not ready to be proved up. These calls were redoubled at
the conclusion of peace, were repeated during the existence of the
confederation, and reiterated at the formation of the new Government
under the constitution. They took the form of law, and barred the claims
which were not presented within limited times. The final bar was seven
years after the new Government went into operation. The committee, of
which Mr. Gallatin was chairman, made an enumeration of these different
statutes, and reported in favor of their observance--a report in which
the House concurred, and to which Congress then conformed its action.
These statutes, and the reasons in which they were founded, seem to have
been since forgotten; and stale claims let in upon the Treasury without
restraint, and proved without difficulty, which no call could bring
forth at the time they were supposed to have originated. It is
instructive to look over the list of these statutes, and see the reasons
in which they were founded, and the efforts made to call in all valid
claims, and the attention paid to them fifty years ago, and the
disregard since.

[28] Upon the request of General Washington the Count de Grasse remained
in the Chesapeake beyond the time which his instructions allowed,
risking all the penalties of insubordination, and by so doing did what
was indispensable to the capture of Lord Cornwallis.

[29] This was the first debate on the prohibition of Slavery in a
Territory which took place under the Federal Constitution, and it is to
be observed that the constitutional power of Congress to make the
prohibition, was not questioned by any speaker. Expedient objections
only were urged.

[30] The speaker here alludes to the paper called "the second treaty of
Pilnitz," which he declares to be a forgery. The first treaty of Pilnitz
was a mere conditional agreement between the Emperor and the King of
Prussia, that if either of them should be attacked by France, they would
unite to repel the attack. This treaty they avowed; and when, on the
acceptance of the new Constitution by the King of France, better
prospects of a peaceable conduct on the part of that nation were
entertained, they suspended this treaty by a formal declaration.

[31] Thus, by a close vote, the Naval Department was created; and, as
the proceedings show, by a party vote--the Republicans of that day being
against a Navy.

[32] The allusion was to Mr. Liston, the British Minister, accused of
complicity with Senator Blount, of Tennessee, in a scheme to send an
expedition against the Spanish province of West Florida, in breach of
our neutrality, Great Britain and Spain being then at war, and the
United States at peace with both. Mr. Blount was expelled the Senate for
his part in that affair, but it was only the beginning of the
enterprises which ended twenty years afterwards in adding both East and
West Florida to the United States. These provinces were geographically
appurtenant to the American Union, and their possession essential to its
political system. The desire for their acquisition was natural, and
efforts to obtain them incessant, until the acquisition was made.

[33] The call was made with a view to the final vote on the Provisional
Army Bill, and the way in which the absentees were accounted for--one
sick and the rest on leave--was highly creditable to the members.

[34] Whereas, armed vessels sailing under authority, or pretence of
authority, from the Republic of France, have committed depredations on
the commerce of the United States, and have recently captured the
vessels and property of citizens thereof, on and near the coast, in
violation of the law of nations, and treaties between the United States
and the French nation: Therefore,

_Be it enacted, &c._, That it shall be lawful for the President of the
United States, and he is hereby authorized, to instruct and direct the
commanders of the armed vessels belonging to the United States, to
seize, take, and bring into any port of the United States, to be
proceeded against according to the laws of nations, any such armed
vessel which shall have committed, or which shall be found hovering on
the coasts of the United States, for the purpose of committing
depredations on the vessels belonging to citizens thereof; and, also, to
retake any ship or vessel, of any citizen or citizens of the United
States, which may have been captured by any such armed vessel.

[35] At this period it was the custom of Congress to have the funerals
of members in the morning or evening, before the meeting, or after the
adjournment of the Houses.

[36] I allude to my painful residence here, as a political cipher.

[37] The general consent with which this answer was voted was honorable
to the House, and advantageous to the character of the country. Besides
depredations on our commerce, there was, at that time, a course of
studied indignities to the United States from the French Government,
then having the form of a Directory, of which _Barras_ was President,
and Talleyrand Foreign Secretary. These indignities were marked and
systematic; of which the speech of _Barras_ to Mr. Monroe when he had
his take-leave audience--the refusal to receive his successor, General
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and insolent threat to commit him to the
police as a mere foreigner in Paris--the subsequent refusal to receive
both himself and Judge Marshall, sending them out of the country, and
endeavoring to divide the embassy--intriguing to extort a bribe, and to
obtain a loan in violation of our neutrality--and not only proclaiming
but acting on the assumption that we were a divided people, (French and
British,) and that a devotion to one or the other of these powers, and
not a sentiment of American nationality, was the sole rule of our
policy. The unanimity of the answer to the President's Speech was a
proper reply to all this outrage and insult. And the re-echoed
declaration of protection "_to the sacred rights of embassy_," was not
only just in itself, and called for by the occasion, but was due to the
personal characters, the dignity and decorum of the two repulsed
Ministers, (Messrs. Pinckney and Marshall,) as well as to their official
station and the nation they represented.

[38] Then in a state of successful revolt against France, but her
independence not acknowledged.

[39] A strong expression, but justified by what had been seen in St.
Domingo.

[40] This whole debate abounds with valuable information on the
condition of the French West Indies--political, commercial and
historical--during the period of the French Revolution. Toussaint,
Santhonax, Polverel, Victor Hugues, Hedouville, Rigaud, Deforneaux, were
household words fifty years ago; and words of portent in their day, and
giving shape to events of present import--though hardly known now.

[41] The House was in Committee of the Whole, but still the speakers
were held to the point, and hence the force and brevity, and instructive
character of these early debates.

[42] It was not the custom then to adjourn the Houses to attend the
funeral of a member. The burial took place before, or after, the day's
session.

[43] In our service the time has been stated at much less--at every
eight or ten years.

[44] The following extract from the celebrated report and resolutions of
the General Assembly of Virginia, in the year 1799, speak the sentiments
of the democratic party of that day on the subject of a Navy: "With
respect to the Navy, it may be proper to remind you that whatever may be
the proposed object, or whatever may be the prospect of temporary
advantages resulting therefrom, it is demonstrated by the experience of
all nations who have ventured far into naval policy, that such prospect
is ultimately delusive; and that a navy has ever in practice been known
more as an instrument of power, a source of expense, and an occasion of
collisions and wars with other nations, than as an instrument of
defence, of economy, or of protection to commerce." And among the
resolutions then adopted, she instructs her Representatives and requests
her Senators as follows: "To prevent any augmentation of the navy, and
to promote any proposition for reducing it within the narrowest limits
compatible with the protection of the sea-coasts, ports and harbors of
the United States, and of consequence a proportionate reduction of the
taxes."

[45] These assurances were given by the same Directory, and through the
same Minister of Foreign Affairs, (Talleyrand,) who had refused to
receive Messrs. Pinckney and Marshall; and, on receiving these
assurances, another extraordinary mission of three eminent citizens was
appointed to proceed to Paris. They were: Oliver Ellsworth, Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; William Richardson
Davie, late Governor of the State of North Carolina; and William Vans
Murray, U. S. Minister Resident at the Hague. Before they arrived at
Paris, the Revolution of the 18th _Brumaire_ had occurred--the
Directorial Government overturned, the Consulate established, and
Buonaparte at the head of affairs. He retained Talleyrand in the Foreign
Ministry, and that astute and supple character conformed as readily to
the policy of the First Consul, (peace with the United States,) as he
had complied with the contrary policy of the Directory.

[46] The allusions were to Mr. Jay and Mr. Ellsworth, appointed to
foreign embassies while chief Justices--the former by President
Washington, the latter by President John Adams.

[47] This was the famous Judiciary act, passed in the last days of Mr.
Adams' administration, and increasing the number of federal judges,
which gave so much dissatisfaction at the time, and which was repealed
in the beginning of Mr. Jefferson's administration.

[48] The prints referred to by Mr. Trumbull, in his letter to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, are, first, a representation of
the Battle of Quebec, and death of General Montgomery; second, the
Battle of Bunker's Hill--both elegant engravings. They are placed on the
right and left of the Speaker's chair, and are highly ornamental to the
Representatives' Chamber.

[49] This was a skilful movement, and a fair one. It shifted the _onus_
from the friends to the opponents of the President; and besides giving
them the advantage of the defensive, impeded the supporters of Mr.
Livingston's motion with preliminary and extrinsic questions from the
start. It was a great party question in its day, and before the people
chiefly turned upon the point that Robbins was an American citizen,
while in Congress that point was given up, and the debate turned upon
the legal right of the President to advise the judge to give up the man,
and especially to giving him up without trying his claim to American
citizenship. Though made, in the main, a party question, it was not
entirely so in the vote, many of the democracy voting with the federal
members in justification of Mr. Adams. It was in this debate that the
(afterwards) Chief Justice Marshall made the speech which gained him so
much fame.

[50] This speech is not reported.

[51] This speech is not reported.

[52] Not reported.

[53] Not reported.

[54] Son of Mr. James Jarvis, of New York, and midshipman on board the
Constellation in the engagement of the 1st of February, who was killed
by the falling of the mast.

[55] The First Meeting of Congress at Washington City.

[56] Citizen Talleyrand, retained under the Consulate as Minister of
Exterior Relations, was the organ of our Ministers' communications with
the First Consul, and his language and deportment on their arrival
present a fine contrast to what they were in the time of the Directory,
and of the X., Y., Z. subaltern intriguers. Thus, arriving in Paris on
the 2d of March, they notify the Citizen Minister of that fact on the
3d, and the same day receive this answer: "The information which you
have just communicated of your arrival at Paris, has given me real
satisfaction. If you will take the trouble to call upon me at half-past
twelve to-morrow, I will be exceedingly glad to have the honor of
receiving you." They called as requested, and were treated with all
courtesy; and, having expressed a desire to be presented to the First
Consul, they received the next day the evidence that he had attended to
their request and accomplished it, and giving the hour they were to be
"so obliging" as to attend in the Hall of the Ambassadors, in the Palace
of the Tuileries. And in notifying them that a commission was appointed
to treat with them, he expressed himself with amiable politeness, "to
remove a misunderstanding which comports as little with the interests as
with the sentiments of the two Governments."

[57] Subject to the disapproval of Congress, and to remain in force
until disapproved--this Territory being a copy in its Government of that
of the North-west under the Ordinance of the 13th July, 1787, except in
the anti-slavery clause.

[58] Nominated Secretary at War, May 7th, 1800. Nomination postponed on
the 9th of May. Appointed May 13th Secretary of State, appointed Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Jan. 27th, 1801. Died
1835.

[59] Twenty-two years afterwards this opinion was verified, and the
system abolished, after thirty years of injurious existence--so hard is
it to get rid of an evil establishment when it has once got foothold.

[60] This result was due, more than to any other, to General Hamilton,
as the majority of the federal party were strongly disposed to support
Colonel Burr--from doing which, they were impressively and successfully
counselled by him. He was personally well with Burr, and ill with
Jefferson, but took the public good, and not his own feelings, for his
guide. He said of them, and of his own duty between them: "If there be a
man in the world I ought to hate, it is Jefferson. With Burr I have
always been personally well. But the public good must be paramount to
every private consideration." The danger of Burr's election was
imminent, as appears from a letter of Bayard's to General Hamilton,
wherein he says: "I assure you, sir, there appears to be a strong
inclination in the Federal party to support Mr. Burr. The current has
already (January 7th) acquired considerable force, and is manifestly
increasing. The vote which the representation of a State enables me to
give would decide the question in favor of Mr. Jefferson. At present I
am by no means decided as to the object of preference. If the Federal
Party should take up Mr. Burr, I ought certainly to be impressed with
the most undoubting conviction before I separate myself from them." This
passage from a letter of Mr. Bayard, (who afterwards decided the
election,) shows the imminence of the danger of Burr's election; and the
answer to it, (with letters to other federal members,) shows that that
danger was averted by General Hamilton. In these letters he depicted
Burr as morally and politically a bad man, utterly unfit and unsafe to
be trusted with the Presidency, and in circumstances to make crime his
necessity as well as his inclination, and implored him to save the
country from the "_calamity_" of his election. The sting of these
letters, rankling in the bosom of Burr, produced the duel in which
General Hamilton afterwards lost his life. A singularly hard fate! to
die for serving his country, and that in the person of an enemy.

This election in the House of Representatives, protracted through four
days and to the 36th ballot, produced the most intense excitement
throughout the United States, and filled the minds of all good men with
alarm for the safety of the Union. The conclusion, however, showing ten
States to have voted for Mr. Jefferson, and only four for Mr. Burr,
shows that there were many members duly impressed with the solemnity of
the crisis, and patriotically coming forward to sacrifice private and
political feeling on the altar of public safety. The following detail of
the 36 ballotings, all alike but the last, appeared in the National
Intelligencer at the time, and shows the name and the vote of the
different members in this most arduous and eventful struggle.

[From the National Intelligencer, of Feb. 17 and 18, 1801.]

That the people may know how the votes of their Representatives have
been given, we present a statement:

_New Hampshire._--4 for Burr, viz: Mr. Foster, Mr. Sheafe, Mr. Tenney,
and Mr. Freeman.

_Massachusetts._--11 for Burr, viz: Mr. S. Lee, Mr. Otis, Mr. N. Read,
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Thatcher, Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. L. Williams, Mr. Bartlett,
Mr. Mattoon, Mr. J. Read, Mr. Sedgwick.

Three for Jefferson, viz: Mr. Bishop, Mr. Varnum, Mr. Lincoln.

_Rhode Island._--2 for Burr, viz: Mr. Champlin, and Mr. J. Brown.

_Connecticut._--7 for Burr, viz: Mr. C. Goodrich, Mr. E. Goodrich,
Griswold, Mr. Dana, Mr. J. Davenport, Mr. Edmond, Mr. J. C. Smith.

_Vermont._--1 for Jefferson, viz: Mr. Lyon.

One for Burr, viz: Mr. Morris.

_New York._--6 for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Bailey, Mr. Thompson, Mr.
Livingston, Mr. Elmendorph, Mr. Van Cortlandt, Mr. J. Smith.

Four for Mr. Burr, viz: Mr. Bird, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Platt.

_New Jersey._--3 for Jefferson, viz: Mr. Kitchell, Mr. Condit, Mr. Linn.

Two for Burr, viz: Mr. F. Davenport, Mr. Imlay.

_Pennsylvania._--9 for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Gallatin, Mr. Gregg, Mr.
Hanna, Mr. Leib, Mr. Smilie, Mr. Muhlenberg, Mr. Heister, Mr. Stewart,
Mr. R. Brown.

Four for Burr, viz: Mr. Waln, Mr. Kittera, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Woods.

_Delaware._--1 for Mr. Burr, viz: Mr. Bayard.

_Maryland._--4 for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. S. Smith, Mr. Dent, Mr.
Nicholson, Mr. Christie.

Four for Mr. Burr, viz: Mr. J. C. Thomas, Mr. Craik, Mr. Dennis, and Mr.
Baer.

_Virginia._--14 invariably for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Nicholas, Mr.
Clay, Mr. Cabell, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Eggleston, Mr. Goode, Mr. Gray, Mr.
Holmes, Mr. Jackson, Mr. New, Mr. Randolph, Mr. A. Trigg, Mr. J. Trigg,
Mr. Tazewell.

Five for Mr. Burr on the same ballots, (two of whom on the first ballot
voted for Mr. Jefferson,) viz: Mr. Evans, Mr. H. Lee, Mr. Page, Mr.
Parker, Mr. Powell.

_North Carolina._--6 invariably for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Alston, Mr.
Macon, Mr. Stanford, Mr. Stone, Mr. R. Williams, Mr. Spaight.

Four for Burr on some ballots, (3 of whom on the first ballot voted for
Mr. Jefferson,) viz: Mr. Henderson, Mr. Hill, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Grove.

_South Carolina._--Mr. Sumter being sick has not attended, but will
attend, at every hazard, the moment his vote can be of any avail. The
individual votes of the Representatives of this State are not accurately
known, but it is generally believed that Mr. Huger votes for Mr.
Jefferson; and Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Pinckney, and Mr. Harper, vote for Mr.
Burr. Mr. Nott's vote is doubtful. He has gone home.

_Georgia._--1 for Jefferson, viz: Mr. Taliaferro--Mr. Jones, who is
dead, would have voted the same way.

_Kentucky._--2 for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Davis and Mr. Fowler.

_Tennessee._--1 for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Mr. Claiborne.

On Saturday last a memorial was presented to John Chew Thomas,
representative in Congress for this District, from a respectable number
of his constituents, recommending him to vote for Thomas Jefferson, and
declaring that at least two-thirds of his constituents were in favor of
the election of Mr. Jefferson.

The memorial was signed by the most respectable Federal gentlemen of the
City of Washington.

<tb>

[From the National Intelligencer, of Feb. 18.]

On Tuesday at 12 o'clock the 35th ballot was taken; the result the same
with that of the preceding ballots.

At one o'clock the 36th ballot was taken which issued in the election of
Thomas Jefferson.

On this ballot there were,

Ten States for Mr. Jefferson, viz: Vermont, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and
Tennessee.

Four States for Mr. Burr, viz: Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Connecticut,
and Massachusetts.

Two States voted by blank ballots, viz: Delaware and South Carolina.

In the instance of Vermont, Mr. Morris withdrew.

In that of South Carolina, Mr. Huger, who is understood previously
uniformly to have voted for Mr. Jefferson, also withdrew, from a spirit
of accommodation, which enabled South Carolina to give a blank vote.

And in the instance of Maryland, four votes were for Jefferson and four
blank.

[61] The administration of Mr. Adams fell upon difficult times, and
involved the necessity of measures always unpopular in themselves, and
never more so than at that time. The actual aggressions of France upon
our commerce, her threats of war, and insults to our ministers, required
preparations to be made for war; and these could not be made without
money, nor money be had without loans and taxes. Fifteen millions was
the required expenditure of the last year of his administration; a large
sum in that time, but almost the whole of which went to three objects;
the army, the navy, and the public debt. The support of the Government
remained at the moderate sum which it had previously presented; to wit,
$560,000. The duties still remained moderate--the _ad valorems_, 10,
12-1/2, 15 and 20 per centum; and the latter more nominal than real, as
it only fell upon a few articles of luxury, of which the importation was
only to the value of $430,000. The main levy fell upon the 10 and 12-1/2
per centum classes, of which to the value of 26-1/2 millions were
imported; of the 15 per centum class only 7-1/2 millions were imported;
and the average of the whole was 13 per centum and a fraction. The
specifics were increased, but not considerably; and the cost of
collecting the whole was 4-1/2 per centum. Direct taxes and loans made
up the remainder. The whole amount collected from duties was about 10
millions: to be precise, $10,126,213; that is to say, nearly twenty
times as much as the support of the Government (comprehending every
civil object) required. The administration of Mr. Adams, though
condemned for extravagance, was strictly economical in the support of
the Government, and in the collection of the revenue: the army and the
navy, those cormorant objects of expenditure, brought the demands for
money which injured the administration.

[62] This is the first instance of a _Message_ being sent to the two
Houses at the commencement of a session. Though veiled and commended by
temporary reasons, founded in the convenience of the members and placed
in the fore part of the letter, yet the concluding reasons (which are of
a general and permanent nature) disclose the true reasons for the
change--which was, to make it permanent: and permanent it has been. It
was one of Mr. Jefferson's reforms--the former way of assembling the two
Houses to hear an address in person from the President, returning an
answer to it, the two Houses going in form to present their answer, and
the intervention of repeated committees to arrange the details of these
ceremonious meetings, being considered too close an imitation of the
royal mode of opening a British Parliament. Some of the democratic
friends of Mr. Jefferson doubted whether this change was a reform, in
that part of it which dispensed with the answers to the President. Their
view of it was, that the answer to the Speech, or Message, afforded a
regular occasion for speaking to the state of the Union, and to all the
topics presented; which speaking, losing its regular vent, would
afterwards break out irregularly on the discussion of particular
measures, and to the interruption of the business on hand. Experience
has developed that irregularity, and another--that of speaking to the
Message on the motions to refer particular clauses of it to appropriate
committees, thereby delaying the reference; and, in one instance during
Mr. Fillmore's administration, preventing the reference during the
entire session.

[63] [From the National Intelligencer of Jan. 8, 1802.]

On Monday last the editor addressed a letter to the President of the
Senate, requesting permission to occupy a position in the lower area of
the Senate Chamber, for the purpose of taking with correctness the
debates and proceedings of that body.

It may be necessary to remark that heretofore no stenographer has been
admitted in this area; and the upper gallery, being open to the
admission of every one, and very remote from the floor of the House, has
prevented any attempt being made to take the debates, from the
impossibility of hearing distinctly from it.

The contents of the letter were submitted by the President to the
Senate; and a resolution agreed to, to the following effect: _Resolved_,
That any stenographer, desirous to take the debates of the Senate on
Legislative business, may be admitted for that purpose, at such place,
within the area of the Senate Chamber, as the President shall allot.

On Wednesday the editor had, accordingly, assigned to him a convenient
place in the lower area, from which he took notes of the proceedings of
the Senate On the adoption of the above resolution, which opens a new
door to public information, and which may be considered as the prelude
to a more genuine sympathy between the Senate and the people of the
United States, than may have heretofore subsisted, by rendering each
better acquainted with the other, we congratulate, without
qualification, every friend to the true principles of our republican
institutions.

[64] This motion gave rise to one of the most extended and earnest
debates which had occurred in Congress, involving the interests and
passions of party, as well as questions of high constitutional law and
of great public expediency; and was brought on in the approved
parliamentary form of a resolution to try the principle, unembarrassed
with the details of a new bill. The law proposed to be repealed, besides
adding sixteen new circuit judges at once to the federal bench, (making
38 in all,) was passed in the last days of an expiring administration,
and the appointments made in these last moments, and well confined to
one political party: so that many reasons conspired to make it
objectionable on one hand and desirable on the other, and to call forth
the strongest exertions both for, and against, the repeal.

[65] It was a party vote, and a close one, some changes of members
having changed the majority since the last session--then a bare majority
on the Federal side.

[66] A debate of great length and earnestness now took place in the
House on this repealing bill sent down from the Senate, and passed there
by a majority of only one. The two parties seemed to have staked
themselves upon it, not before the House, (where the issue was certain,)
but before the country, to the arbitrament of which the great appeal was
made. Above thirty members delivered elaborate speeches, of which but
small parts can be given in an abridgment--the less to be regretted, as
the staple of each was, of necessity, much the same--but varied,
enlivened and enforced by the peculiar talent, learning and ability of
different speakers. Their names were--for the repeal: John Bacon, of
Massachusetts; John Clopton, of Virginia; Thomas T. Davis, of Kentucky;
John Dawson, of Virginia; William B. Giles, of Virginia; Andrew Gregg,
of Pennsylvania; Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina; John Milledge, of
Georgia; Thomas Morris, of New York; Joseph H. Nicholson, of Maryland;
John Randolph, of Virginia; General Samuel Smith, of Maryland; Philip R.
Thompson, of Virginia; James Holland and Robert Williams, of North
Carolina.--Against the repeal: James A. Bayard, of Delaware; Manasseh
Cutter, of Massachusetts; Samuel W. Dana, of Connecticut; John Dennis,
of Maryland; Thomas Plater, of Maryland; William Eustis, of
Massachusetts; Calvin Goddard, of Connecticut; Roger Griswold, of
Connecticut; Seth Hastings, of Massachusetts; Joseph Hemphill, of
Pennsylvania; Archibald Henderson, of North Carolina; William H. Hill,
of North Carolina; Benjamin Huger, of South Carolina; Thomas Lowndes, of
South Carolina; John Rutledge, of South Carolina; John Stanley, of North
Carolina; Benjamin Tallmadge, of New York.

[67] The detail of the vote on the balloting shows this fact, so
creditable to South Carolina.

[68] This is the first authentic declaration that Mr. Jefferson's
opinion on slavery was an obstacle to his receiving the South Carolina
vote.

[69] A double movement was going on at the same time in relation to the
violation of the right of deposit at New Orleans: one by the
Administration, commencing with an embassy both to France and Spain to
negotiate for the desired places; the other by the opposition, who held
negotiation to be unworthy of the country in circumstances of such wrong
and insult, and preferred the immediate seizure of New Orleans. Mr.
Ross, a Pennsylvania Senator, from the west of the State, whose trade
went to New Orleans, was the leader of this forcible movement--in which
he was well sustained by the _feeling_ of the whole West. It was on Mr.
Ross's resolutions that this violation of the right of deposit at New
Orleans was publicly debated; and as it concerned the free navigation of
the Mississippi, it was called the "Mississippi question."

[70] This is the act which began the movement, which ended in the
purchase of Louisiana. At the time it was passed the views of no one
extended to the acquisition of that great province. The island on which
New Orleans stands, and the two Floridas, were the object. Even this
object was veiled by general expressions in relation to foreign
intercourse, but its true purpose was made known in a confidential
communication from the President to the House of Representatives, and by
it communicated to the Senate, when the bill was up for its concurrence.
Mr. Bayard and Mr. Nicholson were the committee that carried up the
bill, and delivered this message:

      "_Gentlemen of the Senate_:

      "We transmit you a bill, which has passed this House,
      entitled "An act making further provision for the expenses
      attending the intercourse between the United States and
      foreign nations," and in which we request your concurrence.
      This bill has been passed by us in order to enable the
      President of the United States to commence, with more
      effect, a negotiation with the French and Spanish
      Governments, relative to the purchase of the island of New
      Orleans, and the provinces of East and West Florida. The
      nature and importance of the measures contemplated, have
      induced us to act upon the subject with closed doors. You
      will, of consequence, consider this communication as
      confidential."

[71] This was spoken before the campaigns of Ulm, Austerlitz and Jena.

[72] The true reason for the non-circulation of gold was the erroneous
valuation of that coin, which was not corrected until thirty years
afterwards.

[73] This speech, delivered in the Virginia Convention which ratified
the Federal constitution, is the only full and perfect account of the
transaction to which it refers that has ever been published. It refers
to the design in the Congress of the confederation to give up the
navigation of the Mississippi for 25 or 30 years in return for some
commercial privileges from Spain--a design which Mr. Monroe was mainly
instrumental in defeating, and for which he deserved still higher
rewards than honor and gratitude. His reluctance to give the history of
this transaction arose from its secret nature, the Congress of the
confederation sitting upon it with closed doors, and the members being
under injunctions not to disclose what was done. Its essentiality to a
knowledge of the political history of the times must be apparent to all
who read it.

[74] The famous orator.

[75] See _ante_, under date of December 22.

[76] All the steps and proceedings which led to the acquisition of
Louisiana (and the same occurred in the acquisition of Florida) are
given in full, that it may be seen that this important negotiation,
which was to involve an appropriation of money, had its foundation laid
in the authority of the proper appropriating power--the House of
Representatives; to which the purse-strings of the Union were specially
confided.

[77] Above forty years afterwards, to wit, in 1846, the Virginia part of
the District was retroceded to that State.